I'm open to other entries in the category of "most dysfunctional public policy issue in America" - and sadly there's no shortage of contenders - but for me immigration is the hands-down winner. Nothing about it is simple, it is an issue of both domestic and foreign policy, nothing exists in a vacuum and it practically defines the phrase "unintended consequences."
As a center-left sort of guy, I tend to favor more immigration than less. And, as an amateur student of history, I steadfastly believe a generous immigration policy has been America's superpower and remains so <if> we can rationalize a system that is loaded with inconsistencies and distorted incentives.
To do so, though, requires finding consensus on an issue where the trends are pulling us apart. Where, for example, do the worldviews of Stephen Miller, the General Hux of the last administration, and Rashida Talib - who proposed giving undocumented immigrants $2,000 a month during COVID - intersect? That's not a rhetorical question - the scope of the debate is so broad that both of them are in the "mainstream" (which is another sign of our overall political dysfunction IMHO) - so we have to find a solution that pisses them off more or less equally while finding something more broadly centrist that most can agree on.
I can't say that it was ever "close" to a reality but the Lankford bill was the best attempt on this I've seen on this issue. Absolutely no one would have been happy with that bill but it would have been at least a step towards rationalizing and irrational system.
And until we can achieve that threshold - rationality - we can't have a meaningful policy debate on the topic.
I'm open to other entries in the category of "most dysfunctional public policy issue in America" - and sadly there's no shortage of contenders - but for me immigration is the hands-down winner. Nothing about it is simple, it is an issue of both domestic and foreign policy, nothing exists in a vacuum and it practically defines the phrase "unintended consequences."
As a center-left sort of guy, I tend to favor more immigration than less. And, as an amateur student of history, I steadfastly believe a generous immigration policy has been America's superpower and remains so <if> we can rationalize a system that is loaded with inconsistencies and distorted incentives.
To do so, though, requires finding consensus on an issue where the trends are pulling us apart. Where, for example, do the worldviews of Stephen Miller, the General Hux of the last administration, and Rashida Talib - who proposed giving undocumented immigrants $2,000 a month during COVID - intersect? That's not a rhetorical question - the scope of the debate is so broad that both of them are in the "mainstream" (which is another sign of our overall political dysfunction IMHO) - so we have to find a solution that pisses them off more or less equally while finding something more broadly centrist that most can agree on.
I can't say that it was ever "close" to a reality but the Lankford bill was the best attempt on this I've seen on this issue. Absolutely no one would have been happy with that bill but it would have been at least a step towards rationalizing and irrational system.
And until we can achieve that threshold - rationality - we can't have a meaningful policy debate on the topic.