Congress hasn’t passed meaningful immigration policy reform in decades. And the fate of the border deal the Senate has been weighing is looking bleak.
But immigrants are an important part of the U.S. economy, and the status quo is not working. So what do we do?
“We have to decide: Do we want to encourage migration so that we have enough people to do the work that our economy makes available and that an expanding economy needs, or not?” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an immigration law professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and author of the new book “Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the ‘Criminal Alien.'”
On the show today, García Hernández explains why our current immigration policies don’t match the country’s economic needs, what a realistic approach to immigration would look like, and why states and cities might have to take the lead on the issue if Congress continues to stagnate.
Then, we’ll break down the betting forecast for this year’s Super Bowl by the numbers. And: Are tech companies leaning on the crutch of artificial intelligence to justify layoffs?
Later, a listener explains that you can avoid flying on a Boeing 737 Max plane. And we’ll get smarter about cicadas!
Here’s everything we talked about today:
“The Senate border deal is dead” from The Washington Post
“Detention and that border ‘shutdown’: What’s really in Biden’s bipartisan immigration deal” from Politico
“Before Title 42, Congress Failed to Overhaul Immigration Policy” from The New York Times
“Biden weighs a “shocking” revival of Trump’s immigration agenda” from Vox
“Texas’ Standoff With the Border Patrol Is a Constitutional Powder Keg” from Mother Jones
“Immigration has returned to pre-pandemic numbers. How does that affect the economy?” from Marketplace
“Tech Layoffs Just Keep Coming as Sector Resets for AI” from The Wall Street Journal
“The Super Bowl is expected to smash betting records. Nearly 68M US adults plan to wager” from AP News
“Cicada brood map 2024: When and where billions of the bugs will emerge” from Vox
We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question. You can reach us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.
Make Me Me Smart February 6, 2024 Transcript
Note: Marketplace podcasts are meant to be heard, with emphasis, tone and audio elements a transcript can’t capture. Transcripts are generated using a combination of automated software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting it.
Kai Ryssdal
If Jayk is ready. I got Jayk unawares. I’m four minutes early. Jayk’s like, dude man, you’re killing me. I got things to do. I’m a busy man. Hey everybody, I’m Kai Ryssdal. Welcome back to Make Me Smart, where none of us is as smart as all of us.
Nova Safo
And I’m Nova Safo filling in for Kimberly Adams. Thanks for joining us. It’s Tuesday, February 6. Today, we’re talking about what’s going on at the US-Mexico border and Congress’s, well, perennial battle over the border and immigration.
Kai Ryssdal
This is, I think, the definition of an intractable problem, but we’re going to let our expert guest discuss that with us and explain to us why it’s so intractable and what may eventually be done. César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández is a professor of immigration law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Also, he’s got a new book coming out on the topic, “Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the ‘Criminal alien,’” and that’s in quotes. First, welcome to the show, it’s good to have you on.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
It’s my pleasure to be here with you all.
Kai Ryssdal
What do you think? Intractable problem, right?
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
It certainly seems that way. This bill, it was declared dead on arrival within, I don’t know, what was it 15 minutes of being released? So, I’m not holding my breath.
Kai Ryssdal
Yeah, no. All right, so look, we will because we have to get to the politics of this thing in a bit. But could you just briefly sort of, over the past 50-ish years, give us a framing of the immigration debate in this economy, please.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Migrants are absolutely essential to so much of the economic activity around the United States. We all see, you know, the ways in which migrants are doing some of the work that keeps our cities and farms and ranches running in every quarter of the United States. But unfortunately, the law of immigration in the United States, does not keep up, has not kept up with the reality of migration. And what that’s meant is that there are, every year, people who can get jobs in the United States, people who have family members in the United States, and yet they are people who cannot legally get into the United States themselves. And so, what that means is that they’ve figured it out by any means necessary. And that’s when we get these scenes that are politically quite troubling, problematic. But frankly, I think it’s the experiences of those migrants that are far more troubling. Because they often have to put themselves in situations that are dangerous, if not life threatening.
Nova Safo
And why do they have to put themselves through that gauntlet? One of the things we hear often is folks say, we’re not opposed to immigration, we’re opposed to, you know, this kind of lawless immigration that is depicted. And the argument goes, you know, folks should get in the back of the line, you know. So, why do you say that they don’t have an option? For example, getting back of this, you know, mythical line.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Well, to be clear. Every year, millions of people who do go through that immigration law process and do come into the United States, some of them have the permission to come and make their lives here for indefinitely. They get green cards. Other people get permission to come temporarily, maybe it’s to go on vacation, maybe it’s to study, and so that way, I think that often gets overlooked in these political conversations about immigration law that, you know. To a great extent, the immigration legal system is working because every year there are millions and millions of people who are coming into the United States who are not US citizens. But there’s a mismatch. And so, when we’re talking about Mexican citizens or citizens of the Philippines, for example, you know, for some folks the line is so long that it essentially takes two decades to wait and hope that your visa application is going to be approved in a line that lasts two decades. I mean, that makes the lines at Disneyland seem fast, right? This is not a real line if what you’re hoping is that people are going to stand there and wait around especially when we’re talking about you know, when do you get to live with your family?
Kai Ryssdal
Yeah. So look, how do you disinfect, because you raise a really important point between the legal immigration process which is largely functioning, if ridiculously slow, right? But there is a process, and it basically works, and then the asylum and border situation that we have. But look, how do you disentangle the nativist tendency of the United States? Because that’s not news. We’ve been that way for many, many, many decades, if not centuries, right? How do you disentangle the nativist tendency with the absolute reality that immigration policy is labor market policy? We have to have these people to make our economy work.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Well, we’re stuck in kind of a rut of imagination when it comes to immigration policy, pretty much all we hear from elected officials is we need more Border Patrol agents. We need more ICE officers. We need more beds inside of ICE’s immigration prisons. And ever so often, there is a little bit of give on the number of visas that are available to come into the United States. So, this bill that was released over the weekend would create about 250,000 more visas annually, if enacted. And the reality, though, is that we need a lot more people if what we want is to maintain the strong economy that we have in the United States. Now, that’s a political choice. Maybe the cost of the economy is a robust economy is something people don’t want to take on, right? And in that if that’s the case, then I think we should be having that conversation, because that is a question of tradeoffs. But instead, what we’re hear is, “Well, if we just had more law enforcement officers deployed to the border, we could prevent people from coming to the United States in violation of immigration law.” And that has never been true. It wasn’t true when we enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 19th century. It wasn’t true when we tried to keep out the southern and eastern Europeans in the early part of the 20th century. It wasn’t true when President Trump started blocking asylum seekers at the border under Title 42. And if this bill is passed, that would make it easier for federal immigration officials to shut down access to asylum under certain circumstances, then I think we should just expect that won’t be true then either.
Nova Safo
So, what would a realistic approach to, you know, figuring out our immigration system look like?
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
I think we have to decide. Do we want to encourage migration, so that we have enough people to do the work that our economy makes available and that an expanding economy needs? Or not? And if the answer is we want to continue being economically robust country that the United States is, then we have to figure out how do we change our immigration laws to allow more people to come into the United States, not fewer people to come into the United States. We could imagine situations in which we simply expand the number of visas that are available. This bill would do that. We could also just decide that we’re going to reduce the number of stringent pathways into the United States, so that there aren’t as many requirements to satisfy in order to get into the US. You know, those are choices that Congress has to make, because those are choices that Congress has imposed, or requirements that Congress has imposed in the past. And the Biden administration is being creative about how it uses its parole authority, and is fighting that political fight, and with Congress about maintaining that parole authority, because that’s a really flexible tool that’s available. And that’s how we’ve seen that we have been able to welcome people from say, Ukraine. We’ve been able to welcome people from South America and some extent Central America.
Kai Ryssdal
With all possible respect professor, and I do mean that because you have obviously spent your life studying this stuff and working on it. It has been 38 years since we had a comprehensive immigration bill in this country. It’s entirely possible it’s going to be another 38. The situation right now, the status quo is untenable. What do we do?
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
To be to be honest, I don’t think that politicians think it’s untenable based on the proposals.
Kai Ryssdal
Well wait, so. Sorry. Sorry, so let me jump in here, actually. And let’s get to the politics of this thing, right? Because you’ve got one party in Congress, which demanded and got from a Democratic president. Everything they wanted in an immigration bill, almost everything. And now they’ve turned around to say no. So clearly, the Republicans see political opportunity here. The Democrats who want other things, Israeli and Ukrainian aid, have willingly said, “Look, we’ll take this thing.” What are we supposed to do when it’s not being treated as a as a serious policy issue, but rather a political football?
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
That’s what I mean when I say that I don’t think that politicians view the current situation as untenable. When you unveil a policy proposal, like the one that we saw over the weekend, and one of the leaders of one of the two chambers says this is not going anywhere, right? That to me sounds like a politician, who is much more interested in the political opportunity that migration presents, rather than in the policy of migration and changing the policy of migration. So, I agree, I think that we are likely to be in exactly the same situation, as far as immigration policy is concerned, six months from now, and maybe even six years from now. And so, I think that means is that we’re going to have more people coming to the United States who do not have the federal government’s permission. I want to encourage states and cities to be thinking creatively about what they can do to help some of these folks begin the lives that they’re so desperately trying to. And the 1986 law that Ronald Reagan signed as President, that says that the only people who can be hired to work in the United States are people who have the federal government’s permission. That law is really clear, that it applies to private employers, and it applies to federal government agencies. But the law says absolutely nothing about whether it applies to states or cities.
Kai Ryssdal
So that’s actually a really good point. And just as a way to wrap this up, especially given what’s happening now with Texas and the Border Patrol and then shutting the federal authorities out of that stretch of the border along the river. Do you suppose that in the absence of federal policy action, not enforcement action, but policy action, that states and localities now are going to be the frontline as it were of immigration policy?
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
I think they can, and I think they should. And I think that some of the cities that are run by Democrats that have been asking the Biden administration to do more about work permits, should start to think creatively about just bringing these migrants onto their own payroll, regardless of whether or not they have the federal government’s permission to work in the United States. And I think the law gives them that wiggle room.
Kai Ryssdal
Professor, thanks for your time, sir. César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández at the Ohio State University in the Moritz College of Law there. His new book on the topic at hand, “Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the ‘Criminal Alien.’” Professor, we thank you for your time, sir. Appreciate it.
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Thank you. My pleasure.
Nova Safo
Wow, that last point.
Kai Ryssdal
Right, that’s actually really interesting. That’s actually really interesting, right? Iin the absence of federal action, states and localities are going to be left to deal with this. And we’re seeing it now, right? We’re seeing it obviously in Texas, but also in the blue states. To which Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis, the governors of Texas and Florida respectively, have shipped those migrants. Deposited them as it were on the doorstep.
Nova Safo
Yeah, and the idea that this law professor we just spoke with says there’s legal wiggle room to do this. That’s very interesting.
Kai Ryssdal
Anyway, your thoughts, please, on the political debate, obviously over immigration, also the policy debate. What do you think? What should we do? What can we do? What ought we do? We’ll take that or anything else. That’s on your mind. 827-627-8508. U-B-SMART. That’s the letter U. The letter B. Smart. We’ll be right back. Yeah, so as I look up at the CNN monitor in the studio here. It says and this is a quote, “Biden speaks as Senate border deal nears collapse.” So, there you have it. We are going to do some news. Nova, you get to go first.
Nova Safo
All right. Let’s switch topics. Yeah. I don’t know if you heard Kai, but it’s Super Bowl week. This might come as a surprise to you. Have you? Oh, wow. Okay. Was I the only one that hadn’t? So, interesting little forecast from the American Gaming Association, which might have, you know, a horse to play in this race. But they say that 68 million Americans are probably going to be betting on this year’s Super Bowl. One in four, 35% higher than last year. But numbers get more interesting, $23 billion expected to be wagered on the game. And of that, guess how much of it is legal betting at legal outlets?
Kai Ryssdal
Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m not in that world.
Nova Safo
One and a half billion dollars of that is at legal outlets. I’m not sure what to make of these numbers. I’m still processing.
Kai Ryssdal
Yeah. Yeah, no, totally. If we had an office pool? Nope. Well, we don’t have an office pool. I would not be here because I’m a terrible gambler. Anyway.
Nova Safo
I know. 49ers?
Kai Ryssdal
Yeah, I think you gotta go Niners even as much fun as it is. Patrick Mahomes, they’ve won it once already. So, mine is more of an observation than an actual news item, just a piece from the Wall Street Journal today. The headline, which is, “Tech Layoffs Just Keep Coming as Sector Resets for AI.” I think technology in this economy is taking the easy way out, and they’re blaming AI for all of these layoffs, instead of just saying, “During the pandemic, we hired way too many people. I’m really sorry, but we have to let you go.” And I know that sounds callous, but I’m being abbreviated here. I just think they’re taking a convenient crutch of artificial intelligence, which will certainly take some jobs. But I think it would be better for just everybody if people were honest, and said, “Look, we heard way too many people. Way too many people. Yes, AI is going to do something, but mostly it’s us guessing wrong.” Anyway, that’s it.
Nova Safo
Yeah. When will all these start to actually show up in the job’s numbers, these layoffs?
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, good question. Good question. I mean, today is DocuSign laying off 6% of its people. You know, I don’t know. It is interesting to me that as the economy is robust, right, were 350 something 1000 jobs last month. The economy’s growing, at whatever it is, three-ish percent in the fourth quarter. 3.1% I think for 2024, that all these tech companies are laying people off.
Nova Safo
And the initial jobless claims aren’t budging, so I wonder, are they just finding jobs again very quickly?
Kai Ryssdal
One hopes. Okay, so. Oh, Nova, I stole your line. I’m sorry. We’re going to do the mailbag.
Nova Safo
No, go ahead. You take it.
Kai Ryssdal
I read ahead.
Mailbag
Hi Kai and Kimberly. This is Godfrey from San Francisco, Jessie from Charleston, South Carolina. And I have a follow up question. It has me thinking and feeling a lot of things.
Nova Safo
It’s the mailbag. Last week, we talked about the troubles. We’re just moving things around here. Last week, we talked about the troubles at Boeing and asked if you would fly on a 737 Max 9 right now. Very interesting question. I remember that conversation. We got this from Clint in Austin.
Clint
For the longest time, we really didn’t have a choice in that. You just choose the airlines. You don’t know what equipment you’re getting, but Kayak added a filter option on their search, so that you can actually filter not only by price and date and airline, but you can also filter based on the equipment they are using. So, if you don’t want to fly on a Boeing Max, you can unselect that and choose something else.
Kai Ryssdal
Yes, informed consumers. Although I would note that Clint in Austin did not say whether he would fly on a 737.
Nova Safo
He didn’t He didn’t say. You know what I find fascinating is we haven’t heard from Kayak.
Kai Ryssdal
Yes, that is true.
Nova Safo
Because they have the data there.
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, that’s true. That’s true. Yes, of course. Right.
Nova Safo
Who’s clicking on that, I’m won’t fly on a Max.
Kai Ryssdal
Yep. Yeah, I would by the way. Just for the record, I would fly on a Max plane.
Nova Safo
You would?
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, yeah.
Nova Safo
Why?
Kai Ryssdal
Because I want to get from point A to point B.
Nova Safo
You’re confident in their safety. Okay. They just stopped production again. I misaligned.
Kai Ryssdal
I know, incorrectly drilled holes and look I get that. Yeah, I get that but it’s not in my nature to live in fear. That’s my fundamental mantra in life is, yeah everything’s going to work out. It’s going to be all right.
Nova Safo
Yeah, but I just like to give context to folks that you rode on vehicles that had exploding chairs.
Kai Ryssdal
Well, for the record, the E-2 did not have airplanes. The E-2 that I flew, the airplane I flew does not have ejection seats, sadly. Okay, well. Anyway, let’s move along, shall we? I’ll get the next line. All right, so we’re going to go now mercifully. You’re welcome. And leave you with this week’s answer. The Make Me Smart question, which is just to refresh your memories: What is something you thought you knew, but later found out you were wrong about? We got this answer from Chris Simon. She is a leading cicada expert at the University of Connecticut and I’m just going to say it without even hearing it, no.
Chris Simon
I, like everyone else, thought that there were only three species of 13 years caterers in the US. It turns out that once my lab group and I started to look at their DNA, we learned that there were at least four species of 13 years cicadas. The DNA suggested that for at least some of the species of 13-year cicadas, all those individuals North of Northern Arkansas and Southern Illinois were recently and secondarily derived from 17-year cicadas. We also discovered that about 40% of the people we encountered in the field loved periodical cicadas. 40% hated them, and the rest were undecided. We need to concentrate on educating 60% of the population.
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, my goodness. Chris Simon, thank you so much for your thoughts and your comments and your input to this podcast. But no, there’s going to be gazillions of cicadas traipsing around the central part of this country. And it’s going to be completely disgusting. Just absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Nova Safo
Agreed. It was one of my least favorite parts of living in Chicago.
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, so you have actual experience.
Nova Safo
Yeah, the annual cicadas there.
Kai Ryssdal
Oh, hell no.
Nova Safo
Still gross. Still gross, and so loud.
Kai Ryssdal
Right. Right. That’s what I read. That’s what I read. Yeah,
Nova Safo
It’s loud, Kai. It goes on and on for like weeks.
Kai Ryssdal
I will not. Hard pass. But thank you anyway, Chris Simon. All right, take us out.
Nova Safo
All right. What have you been doing wrong lately? What have you been wrong about lately? Also, what have you been doing wrong lately?
Kai Ryssdal
That’s a whole different Make Me Smart question. What have you been doing wrong lately? Tell us. We’ll put on the podcast.
Nova Safo
I haven’t. I am, for example, haven’t learned how to read scripts properly. What have you been doing wrong lately, is not the question. It’s what have you been wrong about lately? Send us your answer to the Make Me Smart question. That number to call is 508-827-6278. Also known as 508-U-B-Smart.
Kai Ryssdal
Courtney put an exclamation point on the back of that one. Maybe she’s serious. Courtney Bergsieker produces this podcast. It’s called Make Me Smart. Our newsletter is written by Ellen Rolfes. Jayk Cherry engineered today. Charlton Thorp is going to mix it down later. Thalia Menchaca is our intern.
Nova Safo
Ben Tolliday and Daniel Ramirez composed our theme music. Our senior producer is the wonderful Marisa Carrera, and the equally wonderful Bridget Bodnar is the director of podcasts. Francesca Levy is the Executive Director of Digital, and Marketplace’s Vice President, General Manager and boss of us all is Neil Scarbrough.
Kai Ryssdal
Who still for some reason only gets his name in the credits on Tuesdays. I don’t understand.
Nova Safo
You got to be the boss of more than all. Infinity, to get more than one day.
Apple
Spotify
Amazon
RSS