July 14, 2019
by Steve Stofka
It was a busy week in Washington. Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, testified before a House subcommittee. His dovish remarks signaled Wall Street traders that the Fed would almost certainly lower interest rates at their next meeting on July 30-31 (Note #1). The market rallied to new highs even as investors continued to transfer funds from stocks to bonds during the past month (Note #2).
Not so dovish was the atmosphere at a House subcommittee hearing this week on immigration proceedings at the southern border. Very emotional testimony from several freshman House members who had visited immigrant detention facilities in Texas. The former head of ICE under Presidents Obama and Trump testified about the challenges that border patrol officers face under the surge of immigrants. Human and drug trafficking along the southern border has been at crisis levels for many months. Patrol officers are not trained to be social workers or medical attendants but find that most of their time is spent caring for people who lack the physical stamina necessary to navigate the harsh conditions of the deserts of northern Mexico.
Many immigrants are sick or injured after a long treacherous journey from Central America. The crowded facilities pose a challenge even for healthy immigrants. They are certainly no place for mothers with young children, but neither was Ellis Island (Note #3). However, most of the immigrants at Ellis left the building after several hours (Note #4).
I was reminded of my grandmother and aunt who were turned away twice for whooping cough and pink eye. It was easy to pick up contagious diseases on the 7-10 day journey in third-class quarters on a crowded transatlantic steamer a century ago. Processing hundreds of immigrants a day, doctors at Ellis Island were quick to reject those with even the hint of TB or trachoma (Note #5). In the years before World War I the northern states needed workers and government officials were largely forgiving of many disabilities and illnesses. Less than 2% of immigrants were deported. My family was one of the unlucky ones – twice. My grandfather waiting on the Manhattan shore a few miles away must have been confused and angry.
Some Americans are insistent that immigrants should follow our Constitution, but our founding document has little to say about immigration. Article 1, Section 8 states that the Congress shall “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” End of story. For the first hundred years of our nation’s existence, each state processed immigrants. Many immigrants did not present any paperwork or pass a medical examination. State and Federal governments simply took an immigrant’s word as to their name and personal information. Those who insist most loudly that immigrants follow our laws may be descended from people who followed no laws when they immigrated into our country.
In 1891, Republican President William Henry Harrison signed into law the Immigration Act of 1891 passed by a Congress dominated by Republicans (Note #6). Republicans represented the interests of northern businesses who needed able bodied workers who were unlikely to become dependent on government for their care. The flood of immigrants into the northern states gave Republicans additional congressional seats and an edge over Democratic majorities in the southern states.
The founding documents of this country were forged in the fires of heated debate and hard bargaining (Note #7). In 230 years, the debate has not cooled. Today, Democratic majority states like California and New York stand to gain Congressional seats as they welcome and champion the rights of immigrants. While the Senate has a filibuster rule, only the Democratic Party can fix our broken immigration laws because they are the only ones capable of securing a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Republican Party has not enjoyed such a majority since Senators were first popularly elected in 1914. If Republicans are ever going to take the lead on contentious issues, they will have to abandon the Parliamentary filibuster that chokes most legislation to death in the Senate.
Why didn’t the Democratic Party address the issue of immigration while they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and controlled the Presidency and House? Was it not important then? Nancy Pelosi was House Speaker then and now. She is known for her political ability to “count votes.” Perhaps she would be more effective if she looked further than votes. In a deeply divided nation with a constitutional architecture that resists change, a resolution of our most intractable problems is a formidable challenge for any leader.
After the Financial Crisis in 2008, Pelosi helped patch together two large pieces of legislation under Obama’s first term. ARRA was an $800B stimulus package passed in February 2009 that did help keep unemployment from getting even worse but was ineffective in many areas because the stimulus was diluted over several years (Note #8). That and the passage of the controversial ACA, dubbed “Obamacare,” cost the Democrats dearly in the 2010 midterm elections. Obamacare has withstood both legislative and judicial assault but may fall sometime this year to yet another judicial challenge that was just heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s a topic for next week’s blog.
- Schedule of Fed meetings
- ICI flow of funds
- Crowded main hall at Ellis Island
- Relatively short processing time at Ellis Island
- Medical examinations of immigrants at Ellis Island
- Immigration Act of 1891
- Michael J. Klarman’s “The Framer’s Coup” is a thorough account of the construction of our nation’s Constitution. The audio book
- ARRA – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009