Abbott’s Rightfully Fed Up, But His Gimmick Goes Too Far

Last night, Texas governor Greg Abbott tweeted that he plans to bus illegal immigrants to Washington, D.C., because of Biden’s failed border policy:

In a press conference on Wednesday, Abbott laid out the plan in more detail. The Texas Tribune covered it:

Texas would place state troopers in riot gear to meet migrants at the border and bus them straight to the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., where he said the Biden administration “will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border.”

According to the Tribune, Abbott soon after took a “softer tone” when his office clarified that the program is voluntary:

The governor’s office clarified that the program is completely voluntary for migrants and would happen only after they had been processed and released by the Department of Homeland Security. And in addition to buses, Abbott also ordered the state to charter flights to transport migrants to the nation’s capital. The migrants would have to show documentation that they had already been processed by DHS. Many immigration advocates have noted that providing transportation services for asylum-seekers to reach their final destination is something the state should invest in.

Texas senator Ted Cruz voiced his support for the plan and also suggested sending migrants to wealthy parts of the country, per legislation he proposed in 2021:

The stunt has predictably drawn outrage from progressives and immigration activists. But even some Republicans have questioned Abbott.

State representative Matt Schaefer (R., Texas) tweeted:

Schaefer’s right; the plan sounds gimmicky. And more than that, it’s dehumanizing to some migrants, thousands of whom are fleeing situations of poverty and persecution. They should not be regarded as mere political pawns (no matter where you stand on immigration).

But, despite his unsavory tactics, Abbott’s frustration is reasonable.

The lifting of Title 42 on May 23 will trigger a surge of over 170,000 migrants at the border.

Title 42 — a Trump-era CDC policy that turned away asylum seekers to prevent the spread of Covid — will cut off the Biden administration’s only comprehensive form of border control (though as Charlie pointed out, that’s shouldn’t be enough to keep the emergency provision in place). 

This U.S. will certainly experience a mass migration event on top of the existing border crisis. I wrote last week: 

The southern border is being inundated by migrants, with about 7,100 encounters on a daily basis and over 160,000 encounters in February alone. (In February 2021 there were 101,099 encounters and in February 2020 there were 36,687.) The situation is so dire that DHS deputy secretary John Tien asked employees to consider joining the DHS Volunteer Force. Despite turning over a million migrants away under Title 42, the Biden administration has been releasing thousands of families into the interior, further encouraging the current surge on the southern border.

While Biden has carried out over 1.7 million expulsions under Title 42, the administration has still processed thousands of migrants — mostly unaccompanied minors and family units — under Title 8, the normal process for asylum seekers:

According to the CDC’s reassessment report on Title 42 in August, a “significant percentage” of family units (73.8 percent in 2021) were “unable to be expelled” for a “given range of factors, including . . . restrictions imposed by foreign governments.” The Mexican government accepts only returned Mexican and Northern Triangle nationals. On top of that, Mexican officials “refuse to accept the return of any non-Mexican family with children under the age of seven.” This, in turn, “greatly [reduces] DHS’ ability to expel” family units.

As these migrants await asylum proceedings under Title 8, they are supposed to be detained by DHS.

With detention centers full and migration rates surging, it’s been impossible to “detain” everyone. Instead, they’re being released into the interior to await proceedings, encouraging even more immigration at the southern border.

This is putting a massive strain on border communities, like those in Texas. In December alone, 55,000 migrants were released into the United States, many heading to Texas cities and towns.

So Cruz and Abbott’s frustrations are rooted in reality. But their messaging isn’t just dehumanizing, it may also carry political consequences for their party.

Abbott, of course, is up for reelection and wants to talk tough on immigration as his state experiences migrant surges. But this may have repercussions for his party on the national level by alienating Democrats who are questioning Biden’s border policy and further riling up activist groups.

After the Biden administration announced an end to Title 42, Democrats — especially those in tight reelection races — were either quiet or critical. On Tuesday, Politico wrote:

While progressives have largely called the rescission of Title 42 — which allowed border agents to quickly kick out thousands of migrants — long overdue, moderates have slammed the administration for proceeding without a plan to handle an expected surge of migrants. The four most vulnerable Senate Democrats — Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire — have all spoken out against the Biden administration’s move, echoing GOP concerns about a coming spike in the number of migrants arriving at the border.

Today, we reported that a bipartisan group, led by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) and James Lankford (R., Okla.), are proposing legislation to block Title 42’s repeal. (Again, to Charlie’s point, keeping Title 42 as more permanent border control seems shaky — it’s an emergency response.)

So tread carefully, Abbott.

Democrats’ most consistent and resounding criticism of conservative immigration policy is its inhumanity (though, ironically, Biden is still using Trump’s Title 42). I’d imagine the Republican Party — on the cusp of a bipartisan condemnation of Biden’s immigration policy — would prefer not to give progressives more fodder.

Editor’s note: This post originally referred to Matt Schaefer as a congressman; he is a state representative.