The Equality Act and Immigration Policy

Topics Discussed

  • The Equality Act

  • Moment of Hope

  • Immigration Policy

  • Outside of Politics: Beth’s Birthday

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a financial supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

THE EQUALITY ACT

IMMIGRATION

Transcript

Sarah: [00:00:00] I think that so many immigration opponents, especially just as we're having these conversations in our everyday lives, hear well, we just need to be good. We just need to be like a shining light in the world and we need to do this because it's the right thing to do. That's true. That's all true. And also that doesn't persuade people.

We should do it for reasons that help our country. Immigrants help our economy. They use less social resources. In particular, when we are talking about the aging of our population and our social safety net, immigration can be a part of the solution we're not harnessing.

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth, 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

Sarah: [00:01:03] Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics and welcome to all our new listeners who are discovering us through the Apple spotlight program. We are still so thrilled to be the second creative team chosen by the editorial team at Apple podcasts. Um, if you're new and you've noticed that we talk about our lives outside of politics at the end of the show, but you'd like a little bit more of that content, you can check out our, ask us anything episode from the end of 2020.

 It was really fun. We talk about the origin of the show. We talk about other parts of our lives. We just, we answered the questions and it was a lot of fun so if you want to check that episode out, it'll be linked in the show notes and also if you're interested in pantsuit politics merch, we have so many fun options.

Beth: [00:01:47] Especially if you enjoy the phrase, have the best day available to you, you can find it on t-shirts or notebooks or masks, whatever you would like. We have new designs going up all the time. We partner with Tee Public on our merchandise, [00:02:00] and it is our favorite thing in the whole universe, when people tag us on Instagram, showing their Pantsuit Politics pride. 

Sarah: [00:02:07] It's so true and fun fact, we're going to have the most beautiful best day available to you story as our moment of hope today. But before we get to that moment of hope, we're going to talk about the Equality Act. We've been getting lots and lots of questions about the Equality Act.

And then after the break, we're going to talk about Joe Biden's immigration plan and immigration generally, lots of questions about that as well and then we will end the show with what's on our mind outside of politics, and it's going to be a good one so stay tuned.

Beth: [00:02:43] The Equality Act passed in the last house of representatives and it has just passed again on February 24th. In between something important happened, the Supreme court decided the Bostock versus Clayton case. We've talked about this a lot here on the podcast and also, [00:03:00] uh, in detail on the nightly nuance on Patreon.

But in that case, The Supreme court with justice Gorsuch writing for the majority held that sex-based discrimination under the Civil Rights Act encompasses gender identity and sexual orientation. So, so HR5, the Equality Act, has Congress putting stamp of approval on the Supreme court's interpretation of this legislation and explicitly amends the civil rights act to include gender identity and sexual orientation in the sex-based discrimination that's prohibited under federal law. 

Sarah: [00:03:34] And this is important for lots of reasons. You know, I have a personal stake in the Supreme court decision in this discussion generally when I was a city commissioner. We passed the Fairness Act, which made this explicit for our particular area in our city, you can not discriminate based on sex or gender identity or sexual orientation. We expanded it through the Fairness Act. 

And what I learned so much during that time is that people thought this was already the case. People [00:04:00] thought it was already the case across the United States, that it was illegal to fire someone because they were gay, to discriminate against somebody because they were transgender.

Like people just assumed that was the state of affairs. Lots of people, not everyone, but that's something that I heard over and over again when I was out in my community talking about the fairness ordinance. And so the Supreme court decision was huge because what happened is cities like mine pass fairness ordinances, and Beth has talked about this. I know you even spoke before the Ohio legislator. 

Beth: [00:04:27] Yeah. Yeah. I submitted written testimony to Ohio state legislature, just about the fact that we're living in this patchwork, where you can drive to your job and have a different set of rights than the community that you live in, in terms of housing and credit and employment, and there's massive issues related to poverty because of the discrimination against LGBTQ people.

It's bananas to have fundamentally different rights about how you are treated as a human being based on jurisdictional lines when most of us don't conduct [00:05:00] all of our affairs within one tiny jurisdiction. 

Sarah: [00:05:03] And so that's why the Supreme court case was so important. And that's why the House acted like you said, to put their stamp of approval on it. And every house Democrat voted for the Equality Act and all, but three Republicans voted against it and we wanted to go through the specifics of the legislation and a little more detail. 

Beth: [00:05:23] So the legislation opens with congressional findings. It talks about those issues that foster care in particular is a big issue that is negatively impacted for all of society because of this discrimination. It talks about court's interpretation of the civil rights act. It says explicitly that Congress finds that conversion therapy is a form of discrimination. And it then amends the Civil Rights Act, the fair housing act, the equal credit opportunity act and the chapter of the United States code on trial by juries, fees to add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sarah: [00:05:58] It also expands protections [00:06:00] of the civil rights act to cover public accommodation so retail, stadiums, and and expands what counts as public accommodation, like online retailers and transportation providers and sweeps all of those public accommodations into the legislation and says there cannot be discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, gender identity.

Beth: [00:06:21] And what's controversial about that is that this legislation answers the flower shop and bakery questions. If you own a retail establishment, you are covered by this legislation. And so if someone asks you to bake a wedding cake and you object to the wedding itself, you cannot discriminate against that customer.

Also controversial is that this legislation explicitly says that the religious freedom restoration act, another piece of federal legislation, is not a defense to a claim under this act. So, if I say that you have discriminated against me under the civil [00:07:00] rights act, you cannot say as a defense, I'm entitled to discriminate against you under the religious freedom restoration act. And it says that there cannot be challenges to this legislation based on the religious freedom restoration act. I can't go into court and say, The Equality Act should be declared invalid because it conflicts with this other law of Congress. 

Now, certainly the first amendment still applies so the government cannot discriminate based on religion. We have that separation of church and state in shrined in the constitution. But this bill itself carves out that protection of the religious freedom restoration act. I still mentioned that when I talk about the Equality Act to anyone, because I don't think there is a chance that courts will allow this piece of the law to stand.

Sarah: [00:07:46] Not our Supreme court, right? 

Beth: [00:07:48] Not this current Supreme court for sure. And States have passed their own versions of the religious freedom restoration act and I think even though there is an attempt by Congress to say it doesn't apply here, [00:08:00] that culturally we are so inclined to be very respectful of people's sincerely held religious beliefs that I think it's going to be very hard to do what the act is attempting to do by including this provision.

Sarah: [00:08:16] Well, and it's important to know that the Supreme court hasn't answered the flower shop or bakery question. They punted on it. They, it got there and they basically said the government committee, I believe it was like a human rights commission, they didn't do a good enough job in deciding the bakery question in Colorado and they sort of just sent it back. So it's not like they've issued this hard and fast rule guiding people on how to answer that question of, when it comes to public accommodations and sincerely held religious beliefs, what should people do? 

Beth: [00:08:45] So I, I am excited about this legislation. I think it is very important. Let's talk about the critiques of this legislation so that we understand what the arguments are. Uh, there's a category of people who are just saying after [00:09:00] Bostock versus Clayton, this isn't necessary. That the Supreme court has chimed in on this and the Supreme court can continue to develop this area of law and let's leave it alone.

That is an interesting critique from a group in society that often tells us we don't need activist judges, but that is a critique. There is the objection that this threatens the flower shop in the bakery and especially healthcare. So if you see people saying this is going to, you know, mandate people to provide abortion services, for example, I don't think that that is at all the spirit or intent of the law. 

And I think it's possible. You never know what's going to end up in court. I think that there could be legislation about hospital systems and the types of reproductive services that they deliver and the type of transgender health care that they deliver. I think that we could see legislation about that under this act.

Sarah: [00:09:54] Then we had David French and the Dispatch, he wrote a pretty long critique [00:10:00] of the law and his argument was that, you know, the purpose of discrimination laws to protect against invidious discrimination. So something that's totally arbitrary or irrational or not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose.

And that overall in America, we are okay with benign and necessary acts of discrimination and that the Equality Act sweeps in some of that type of discrimination and necessary forms of discrimination based on sex or gender identity. And also he is super, super skeptical about the religious freedom restoration act portion of this law.

Beth: [00:10:38] I think he's correct about that. I, I do think the Supreme court would invalidate that when it inevitably works its way to them. 

Sarah: [00:10:45] So, Beth, what do you think about his argument that we are more allowing of benign and necessary acts of discrimination. I mean, I will say this. I think what bothers me about the concerns particularly about the bakery and the flower shop, [00:11:00] is what people want is a constitutional right to express their sincerely held religious beliefs because you could turn away a customer for any reason.

I'm busy. I'm booked. I don't, I can't take you right now. The idea that the constitution protects your right to express those religious sincerely held religious beliefs as a reason for denying someone public accommodation is sort of, that's the part of the argument that falls apart for me.

Beth: [00:11:24] I have a really hard time figuring out how to express myself around the finer points of this bill, because there is a big piece of my brain that is just screaming, how can Congress not find a way to negotiate to an acceptable resolution here, when the vast majority of Americans already believe this is the law, how can we not just get this done? And then I hear on the other side of my brain, Boy, Beth, if you were LGBTQ, hearing someone talked about negotiating your rights would not feel good.

And I do not want to send the [00:12:00] message to anyone that their rights are trivial or up for debate. I care so much about this community. I think we are going to look back on this and feel so strange about the fights we're having right now. And so kind of keeping all of that in mind, where I think David French is correct, is that I, I don't think America agrees yet enough on what we want individuals to have to do in the course of their work to legislate that. But I think there is a difference between what individuals do and what businesses and organizations do. 

So I understand that it sounds really bad to a lot of people to say a Catholic health [00:13:00] system should have to provide abortion care. And at the same time, I think about the fact that so many areas of this country only have a Catholic health system. That's all the healthcare that's available and if you are functioning as a large organization in an area and with basically a monopoly in that area, even if that's not your intent, right?

These are mostly nonprofit health systems, but if you are functioning in that way, it seems to me that we could agree as a society that you ought to hire some individuals who are comfortable providing that care. We have to do all kinds of things as businesses that were philosophically opposed to, I have been working on setting up payroll for Pantsuit Politics.

There are a gazillion aspects of what you have to do when you hire an employee that I am philosophically opposed to and we do them because that is the [00:14:00] price of being a business in the world. We accept lots of prices of being a business in the world or being a functioning organization that receives a certain status on our taxes or whatever it is. 

And so I'm just wondering if there is not room to make some distinctions here and say, we're not saying every individual in the country has to feel comfortable and supportive of every type of care that women and LGBTQ people and, and all other communities need. And we are saying that organizations have to have people within them that can meet the needs of the community and meet the needs of their fellow human beings and, and treat everyone who interacts with the organization with dignity and respect. Am I way off base about this? 

Sarah: [00:14:47] No, I don't think you are at all. And I mean, I think that we are talking about this in a very sort of cool-headed rational approach down to the fact that it doesn't have great prospects in the Senate, [00:15:00] because it would need 60 votes in order to pass and so why are we, why are we talking about it? And you know, to me, It's impossible to talk about the Equality Act and exactly all the issues that you mentioned without acknowledging that this is most certainly a political strategy on the right. 

The grievance politics, the opposition, to any rights, particularly when extended to the transgender community. Like I will never forget during all this sort of controversy in my own community with the fairness ordinance, someone pulling me aside and saying like the opposition isn't about LGBT it's about transgender issues. That's what, that's what fires people up. That's what gets them. 

That's what they're so afraid of because they do, I don't understand, you know, there is, there's a huge gap in knowledge and understanding and empathy when it comes to the transgender community, for lots of reasons that we can't even begin to tackle in one [00:16:00] podcast, but, you know, There is real fear there and then, and because there is real fear there or real ignorance, however you want to describe it, then there is a real political opportunity for the opposition. 

Beth: [00:16:12] I think that's a hundred percent, right. It is clearly a deliberate strategy to make transgender rights the new front in the ongoing culture war. Yep. And that makes me angry and sad and every protective instinct I have comes out because I think that in some ways the issues surrounding transgender people are complicated and in other ways, when a person in your life has this experience, the empathy becomes very uncomplicated. Right.

 It is not difficult to love someone when their gender changes and it is not difficult to feel really sensitive and protective on their behalf when you look at how the world treats someone because of that. And so [00:17:00] I just think we need to talk about what we're really saying. Even if your opposition is only on the transgender side of things and is coming from a place of, I am not sure. I don't understand. I have fear around this. Okay. Do you really feel okay about any person not having access to healthcare? Because that's, to me the biggest piece of this act. If you are in a place where there is one hospital and that one hospital won't do the things that you need, that just doesn't seem okay to me. 

Sarah: [00:17:37] Yeah. So I think there's the pragmatic political reality of the quality act and the surrounding social media fervor. And then I think that there is a bigger cultural reality, which has two components to me. One, with regards to gender identity. You know, that has been a very dramatic shift in our culture, [00:18:00] particularly powered and driven by younger generations of Americans who just have a better, more complex, more adaptable, more fluid understanding of gender.

And that is very difficult for older generations, but I think at this point, you know, you have to acknowledge like that's where we're headed, right? Like you're, there's no putting pandora back, back in the box. Like this is the trajectory of our culture, uh, you know, it's, it's, I'm not going to lie and say it's not hard for me sometimes.

Not because I have any opposition to it because I truly believe gender is, and gender stereotypes in particular are less structured, less harsh, less than enforced, everyone will be happier. Not because I don't think there's a role for lots of femininity or lots of masculinity. I just think it's better when people can decide.

But I, I think that changes is picking up in pace. And so I think that's one of the [00:19:00] reasons that this is such a cultural touchstone, right. Is because I think there's a big conversation around gender identity. And I think the other component of this that feels like it often gets missed when we're talking about sincerely held religious beliefs, is that we are living in an increasingly secular society. You know, I go to church, I'm a person of deep faith, but like I'm in the minority. And it's interesting to me that we are having this intense conversation around sincerely held religious beliefs when fewer and fewer Americans have sincerely held religious beliefs.

Maybe that's important, right? Because as people who hold religious beliefs become a minority, then it becomes an issue of protecting minority rights. I could hear that argument with good faith, but it just seems like that that is something that we need to think about. Like that is the direction this country is headed as well.

Right. Younger and younger generations are more secular, less religious. They [00:20:00] don't attend church. They don't feel like they need to attend church. They're more open in front about the fact that they aren't religious. Like, and to me, like that tension is what's bubbling up to the surface between both the fluidity surrounding gender identity and the increasing secularization of society. Like that's, what's bubbling up when we're all yelling at each other on Facebook about bathrooms. Right. I think that you can just feel that like just stress, just cultural stress about these issues. 

Beth: [00:20:29] And there's no easy way to say this, but it just requires you to distinguish between what is political Christianity and what is cultural Christianity, both of which I would say are very mainstream. And then what is spiritual Christianity, which is declining just by the numbers it's declining. And I, you know, I'm a person of faith and my church is very important to me as well, but I think that there is a big Gulf between, and I don't know, that's that, you know, the [00:21:00] spiritual christianity community has a lot of overlap with the political and cultural Christianity on topics like this. 

I mean, it's, it's, it is very complicated in this very difficult to talk about this with respect for everybody involved but I think so many of these arguments are not made in good faith. Where I struggled with the legal analysis is that I, you know, I love the details. I love the fine print. I think it is very important to craft laws narrowly to accomplish their purpose, to try to think about unintended consequences but the arguments that I hear about the Equality Act presume that courts exercise no judgment whatsoever. Courts exercise all kinds of judgment, but the arguments about this and, and lots of pieces of legislation right now sound like, here is the worst faith version of my opponent's case and I assume they win. And that's just not usually how it works out. 

[00:22:00] Sarah: [00:21:59] Right, right. Because, well, the reason they're making that argument is that it's not a legal argument, it's a political argument meant to play on people's fears. So that's why they're going to the worst case argument and assuming it wins is because they're making a political argument, not a legal one. 

Beth: [00:22:13] So I hope this is helpful to all of you who have written to us to ask about the Equality Act. We're happy to continue to discuss it. I think Sarah is correct that it's unlikely that it gets through the Senate anytime soon. I do think there has to be a path here though. I think there has to be a path to solidify some good legislation in this area, and I hope to see it very soon. 

Sarah: [00:22:32] Up next, we're going to share our moment of hope from Nicholas and his just incredibly heartwarming experience with our phrase, have the best weekend available to you.

Beth: [00:22:43] I wanted to share a story about using the phrase, have the best fill in the blank available to you. My wife and I have been listening to the podcast for a long time, and it has had wonderful impact. This phrase, perhaps is the best crystallization of what you have both meant to [00:23:00] us because it is the epitome of nuance and compassion and we love that approach.

 I started using the phrase with my employees, especially headed into weekends, and many of them took it in stride knowing who I am, but there are always a couple of people. One such employee was trying to mock me saying it was a downer of a phrase and not optimistic. I succinctly told him why I use it and I continued to do so.

The following Friday, I told him the usual have the best weekend available to you. And to the Monday after that, he came into my office to tell me that his father had died over the weekend. This very closed off sarcastic, make a joke of everything employee began to open up to me. He talked about his dad, his family history has struggled to process at all.

This phrase, although he hadn't articulated it in so many words, made it clear to him that I was a safe person for him. I cannot thank you both enough for your unrelenting message of nuance and compassion. Nowhere is that needed more [00:24:00] than in the realm of politics, but we truly needed everywhere so please keep doing the Lord's work with it and have the best week available to you.

Sarah: [00:24:23] Okay. We're moving on from the Equality Act and now we're going to talk about immigration because there's been a ton of executive orders about immigration. There's been a ton of coverage of some of the Biden decisions at the border. And so we wanted to walk through a lot of that with everybody today and have a broader conversation about where immigration has been, where it stands now and where we think it's headed.

Beth: [00:24:45] Since we're going big picture, we're not going to go into the details of all of these executive orders, you can get those on the nightly nuance. We've covered them in the past and we'll continue to do so over on Patreon, but broadly speaking President Biden has been working to [00:25:00] steadily reverse course on much of what the Trump administration put into place especially at the Southern border.

 He has frozen construction of the border wall. He has rescinded the travel ban. He ended a Trump order that restricted visas based on the pandemic. Remember towards the end of the Trump term, we had this order saying, well, immigrant labor would harm the economy while we're trying to recover from COVID so Biden has reversed that. He created a task force to reunite children who were separated from their families with an option for those families to be reunified in the United States. 

This task force puts together leadership of a number of executive branch agencies and tells those people to explore pathways for families who were separated at our border to stay in the United States. Related not directly, but the parents of 105 children have been found by a steering committee of pro bono lawyers and advocates who are working on reunification [00:26:00] and that committee is hopeful that their efforts combined with this task force will be able to bring a lot of those families back together very soon. 

Sarah: [00:26:08] I will say between the coverage of the reunification and then I was listening to coverage of one of the asylum seeker detention centers in Texas and they were, we're talking to people, asylum seekers. So these are people who come to the border and say help, I'm in trouble. I need asylum in the United States. And they had been in these facilities for two years and listening to the interviews of these people come out of this center, reading the stories of the families being reunified.

 I'm going to be honest with you, I thought this is why I voted for this man. This is, this is what I wanted. This is what I wanted to hear. I wanted to stop listening to stories about immigration and feeling like we were the villain and so every step he takes to break down the system and that doesn't mean we're the good guy, just because you're not the villain doesn't mean you're the good guy, but is sure is a heck of a step in the right direction as far as [00:27:00] I'm concerned and it is so, so heartening to hear. 

Beth: [00:27:04] The other piece that has been done by executive order that we should spend a minute on is that president Biden ordered a pause on deportations. On January 20th, the department of Homeland security said we're going to take a hundred days and during that hundred days, we are not going to deport people who have already received a final order of removal through the immigration court system. And remember the immigration court system lives in the executive branch as well. It is not the regular court system. 

Sarah: [00:27:33] So then Texas asked for a temporary restraining order against this 100 day pause. And it said that the Biden administrative order was arbitrary and capricious, you might remember that language because that was one of many, many, many of the democratic States arguments against some of the Trump executive orders.

And they're arguing that it's arbitrary and capricious because it departed from the previous policy without sufficient explanation. The court says that because the federal statute says people shall be removed after [00:28:00] a final order, the order exceeds the executive branch's authority. So the Texas court did grant that temporary restraining order. I mean, that's, they said that texas would be injured by all the money it spends on programs to provide social services and healthcare to people coming into the country. 

Beth: [00:28:13] And I think this case is a good example of the constraints on the Biden administration. You can not reverse course completely from the prior administration overnight. Yeah, and you have to have some congressional buy-in and you have to proceed very carefully because you can say like, well, that was probably just some Trump appointed judge who doesn't like him. I mean, you can assume personal animus in the decision if you want to but the decision is consistent with a lot of decisions that were issued during the Trump administration.

The courts are kind of a check against that seesaw of one administration does this and the other comes in and undoes all of it. We are supposed to [00:29:00] have some continuity and stability in the federal government and, and courts provide that and I really appreciated, um, this comment, I was listening to the Bipartisan Policy Center's podcast This Week In Immigration, and one of the immigration lawyers on the podcast described the executive order so far as being indicative, instead of directive.

 She said they are setting the tone for the direction to take in the policy-making process, but recognizing that the law best most of the authority to actually do that process in the agency heads and that it is a process and the Biden administration doesn't want to spend all its time in court fighting about executive orders the way a lot of the Trump administration's time was eaten up. We spent so much time over executive orders in court. And so all of the executive orders that president Biden has issued so far have been vetted by career DOJ lawyers, to be sure that they're [00:30:00] thoughtful and that they aren't going to automatically be tossed on grounds that they violate the administrative procedures act.

And so as advocates and, and this is the job of advocates, I'm not being critical of them, but as you see advocates, especially doing sort of social media activism, talking about how this is not enough, it's too slow, whatever, like all of that's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the administration isn't doing everything that they can do. They're constrained by the system that they are operating in and some of those constraints are important, as frustrating as they are. 

Sarah: [00:30:32] Yeah, I think that's an important point as we start talking about the legislation that the Biden team proposed on his first day in office, it was a very important priority. I was listening to an interview with Cecilia Munoz who really led that effort on the transition team. And she talked like it wasn't that we just came in with our loose priorities. It's a very big, very specific bill with all the actual policies flushed out in their full specificity. Instead of this is a priority, [00:31:00] let's see what we can do. Like when they rolled in with this act, which was introduced by representative Linda Sanchez in the house and my former boss, Senator Bob Menendez in the Senate, it had a lot of actual, very specific immigration policy in it. 

Beth: [00:31:13] So as we talk about that act, let's remember two key personnel holes as we get into kind of implementation of everything. We still don't have a nominee for the director of ICE or for the commissioner of us customs and border protection. Uh, the Biden administration has not been slow on naming personnel to posts that they think are important. And I think the fact that we don't have those nominees indicates that a lot of thought is going on. 

How do we deal with these agencies? How do we negotiate our relationships with these agencies? How do we respect the people who work within them while also recognizing some of the problems of the past era? It is very hard. I want to have a moment of grace for people who work in those agencies, because it is very hard to be in the transition period and to know that that scrutiny is there and to feel like you're left [00:32:00] hanging a little bit so this is a tough problem for everyone. 

Sarah: [00:32:04] So let's talk about this piece of legislation that's trying to get at this problem. It has paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which is incredibly popular on both sides of the aisle and the United States. And I'm talking about the actual polling of United States citizens who want to see an organized process to give citizenship to immigrants who are here in undocumented fashion. Like I think that we have the idea that that's unpopular, but it's not. Most people do want a good fair system that treats people equitably, particularly the millions who are already in our country.

Beth: [00:32:44] This is a very, very big bill, because in addition to that path to citizenship, you see expansion of just the sheer number of people that we will allow into the United States through the visa program, through the asylum program, through the green card program. It [00:33:00] increases aid to central America. This is really my favorite part of the bill that it tries to get at the root causes of migration.

Why is central America for so many people, an unsafe place to live and how can we help it not be so? It puts into place some pilot programs that think about the needs of different parts of the United States in terms of economic development. So recognizing that immigration is really, really powerful for economic development, it would allow additional immigration based on some localized strategies and programs.

And it authorizes the department of Homeland security and the department of labor to also temporarily reduce admission, um, in particular markets or particular areas based on what's happening with the economy. 

Sarah: [00:33:46] Well, and we're in desperate need of this level of comprehensive immigration reform. And also it's very unlikely at this point, particularly with the filibuster still in place that it would get through Congress. And, you know, I heard an immigration advocate make the case [00:34:00] that basically particularly when it comes to DACA, like that's another very popular policy proposal is to provide citizenship to the kids who came here and who have, you know only really lived in America through most of their lives and there's millions of them. 

And that the advocate was like, stop trying to do everything. Like let's just get some of this through instead of, you know, using doc the momentum and popularity of DACA to get comprehensive immigration reform that is unlikely to pass in Congress. And I think that's the, that's the part of this that's so difficult, is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. And also some of these areas are so desperate for policy change that it's hard to say, well, we need to stay focused on comprehensive reform instead of taking some of this piecemeal, but we could see some of that movement piecemeal.

Beth: [00:34:49] The house of representatives have introduced the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. We could do several episodes just on this piece of immigration. I'm linking in the show notes, a really [00:35:00] excellent overview of what's going on with that legislation and the need that we have to provide permanent residency for undocumented agricultural workers. That bill has been offered on a bipartisan basis by representatives Lofgren and Newhouse.

And then, um, the Senate has a DREAM Act as does the house. In the Senate, it is co-sponsored by Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin so you do see some bipartisan movement on these individual pieces as we're recording on Thursday morning. There's a lot of news that the entire democratic caucus in the house is not on the same page about the comprehensive plan yet.

So I do think the momentum is more behind fixing this one part at a time, and I would rather them do that than us have yet another Congress go by talking about comprehensive immigration reform and not doing it. 

Sarah: [00:35:48] It's hard. I mean, I think that's really hard because it just feels like a system that is, not that we don't have lots of systems crying out for comprehensive reform, but this one in particular feels like it's in desperate [00:36:00] need.

Beth: [00:36:00] The Biden administration has also introduced new guidelines for ICE in a 90 day memo. That just means this is temporary and DHS is going to work on a permanent policy. This is tricky because again, it is really difficult to move a system overnight. So under the memo, we would kind of go back to what ICE was doing in the Obama era.

Prioritizing people for removal based on the threat level those people pose and focusing efforts for removal, taking people actually out of the United States only when they pose a serious security threat. Critics of this 90 day guidance are very upset that it still gives ICE wide discretion over deportation.

And wide discretion to allow people to stay based on ties to the community, personal and family circumstances, age and medical conditions. You know, critics will say ICE doesn't need to have wide discretion [00:37:00] and ICE should stop deporting people. And then on the other hand, you have agents in ICE and other law enforcement agencies saying this leaves us toothless.

Like we cannot do our jobs because often you don't convict the person on the serious threat they pose, you convict them on something smaller, but you know, the bigger threat is out there. And the smaller conviction allows you to deport the person before the bigger threat becomes an issue. 

So you've got critics all around this policy and you will after the permanent policy too, because there are no easy answers here. I did not read this memo and feel the outrage that I think I was supposed to feel based on some of that social media activism though, because again, this is a, this is temporary guidance as a lot of moving pieces are out there and is it, as far as I would like us to go in the direction of a [00:38:00] healthy, supportive immigration system, it is not, but it is progress in my view.

Sarah: [00:38:05] So all of this action on the part of the Biden administration, be it executive orders or proposed legislation or this ICE memorandum is in the context of an influx of immigration at the border. Now, the number of people crossing at the border often goes up with a presidential transition and the Biden administration and making a huge effort to be more welcoming to immigrants is definitely experiencing that normal influx of people crossing the border. 

And I think one of the most helpful pieces of context I heard is that in, in so many ways in America, it's just, just one of them. We have the same font, same policy fights over and over again, as the situation changes. And in the eighties and nineties, the immigration fight was centered and sort of, um, contextualized as single laborers in particular [00:39:00] crossing the border in Mexico.

Mexican adults coming over across the border in order to find jobs in America. That is just simply not what's happening right now in the influx of immigration at the border. That's no longer the case. It hasn't been for a long time. What we see now and what we have seen for many, many years as an influx of families with children or unaccompanied minors from central America seeking asylum. This is just a fundamentally different problem and that's of course the problem that the Biden administration is facing right now. 

Beth: [00:39:40] So that influx Sarah described has led to the opening of a new, temporary migrant facility for children, which is very hard to see. It is very, very hard to see. It is very concerning. It is also different from the separation of [00:40:00] families that happened as a matter of policy during the Trump administration when you have this period of time where the administration as a deterrent, trying to say to people, if you come here with minor children, you will be separated from them. And that resulted in more than 2,700 children being separated from their families and that we are not returning to that zero tolerance policy.

What we are dealing with is a problem that has been a problem for several presidencies now, decades really. When unaccompanied minors cross the border, we have to keep those minors safe and we have to figure out how to safely resettle them. And we have a protocol to do that, to move minors into sponsorship, to locate family members in the United States, through the office of refugee resettlement.

It is very hard right now because of the [00:41:00] pandemic. The facilities that we have that are set up for this purpose can not operate at full capacity and we have lots more people coming in and of course, We don't want these children in government detention. We also cannot leave children on their own and this problem is probably going to get harder than before it gets easier. Customs and border protection expects 13,000 unaccompanied children to cross the border in May. So they will have to open more of these shelters most likely, and that is hard and no one wants it and also there are not a lot of great solutions here. 

Sarah: [00:41:39] So as we, we move on from the specifics of the Biden administration's policy, we wanted to zoom out and talk about the, you know, the state of immigration. We touched on this a little bit at the beginning, but the Trump administration really used, particularly the pandemic, to not just shut down [00:42:00] illegal immigration, but to shut down legal immigration. Asylum seeking is a legal path to citizenship, but we're not even talking about asylum seeking. I mean, that number dropped from 84,995 refugees resettled in the United States in 2016 to 11,815 and 2020. 

That's a massive reduction, but you see it in other areas too. They cut the green cards issued to people in half in half. So, I mean, I think that that's just really important because it feels like every immigration conversation, particularly the immigration conversations on social media, seem to assume that what we're talking about is illegal immigration when often that's not what we're talking about at all. Or if we are talking about that, we have contexts that are dated and no longer applicable.

 Um, like what we were talking about with [00:43:00] crossing the border versus overstaying your visa versus seeking asylum. And even just the parts of the world we're talking about sometimes are no longer applicable. And so I think that that is the first thing we really, really need to think about as we have these, these tough conversations about immigration. 

Beth: [00:43:17] We've gotten several questions lately because Sarah and I have talked on the show about declining birth rates as a problem and why do you think that more people is good basically in a world where climate change is an issue and we have all kinds of challenges and, uh, lots of childhood poverty and things like that.

And I think more people being an overall social good is my framework for immigration. More people overall as a social good means that you have more minds working on hard problems. It means that you have more people thinking about how to stimulate an economy. It means that you're introducing more ideas into the cultural narrative.

It helps [00:44:00] you challenge assumptions that no longer serve you. I think all the time, what would it be like for the task force that the Biden administration has just appointed as soon as they're able to unify families and get basic needs met to spend a lot of time talking with people who went through that experience and to spend a lot of time talking with people who sent their children here unaccompanied to say, what caused you to do this? What would you hope the experience would be for the child when they come to the United States? How could we have made this, how could we have presented better options to you, whether those options involve staying in central America or coming to the United States? I just, we need more minds on this problem.

I don't like talking about migrant children shelters as like a needed horror. There have to be better solutions and I don't understand them because I've never been in that situation. And I just think overall, introducing [00:45:00] more people into the conversation about immigration is the only way that we're going to stop talking about it as a constant problem and be able to harness it as the social good that I believe it is.

Sarah: [00:45:10] Yeah. Because the idea that we're having this conversation and immigration is important for like altruistic reasons and we're all citing the statue of Liberty and American ideas is great and true, and also not moving the needle. And that's what I want to do. I think that so many immigration opponents, especially just as we're having these conversations in our everyday lives here, well, we just need to be good.

We just need to be like a shining light in the world and we need to do this because it's the right thing to do. That's true. That's all true. And also that doesn't persuade people. We should do it for reasons that help our country, you know, immigrants help our economy. They use less social resources, the native born people in particular. When we are talking about the aging of our [00:46:00] population and our social safety net, immigration can be a part of the solution. 

If you are worried about social security, immigration can be a part of the solution. You know, we included Matt Yglesias' 1 billion Americans, the case we're thinking bigger and our extra credit book clubs subscription. I'm reading it now in his case for immigration is so strong.

I mean, think about this. So when we set up social security in 1960, the worker to beneficiary ratio, like how many people we had paying for how many people we had taking checks went from 5.1. To in 2005 to 3.3 and now they're thinking it might go down as far as to 2.1 workers paying for every beneficiary in 2040.

 Like we need more workers to help pay into the system and immigration is the solution to that. And the idea that immigrants come and there's then the wages drop and they're doing jobs that Americans could fill. That's just [00:47:00] not born out in the data. It just isn't born out in the data. And I love the way that he described this, the idea that it's, you know, it takes away, it reduces wages and takes away jobs.

He said, if you visit a place with few immigrants from Mexico, France, or Fargo, or what have you, you don't find that Taqueria workers are earning vastly more money than their counterparts in Texas. You find that there are few good places to buy tacos. This isn't the end of the world any more than an asparagus shortage would be an acute social crisis, but that's exactly why eliminating foreign-born workers doesn't boost wages. People simply make do without the variety that immigrants provide.

I think that you get that too. Like when you're talking about that, Beth as well, like the social good is not just, Oh, we're good people and we feel good about ourselves, is that it expands. It's not just that it deepens like the labor and wages in the economy that we have, it expands the economy. It creates whole sectors of the economy we didn't know we were missing because these people, weren't a part of our [00:48:00] country in our culture.

And that's the benefit. That's the social good on like a real data driven, pragmatic level. Like it's not just that, you know, diversity makes us feel better. It invents more reasons to spend money. It invents more places to eat, more products to buy, more groceries to have, more jobs to fill, it just, it, it, it makes our lives better and not just because we feel better at like we're better people. And I feel like that's so much of the immigration discussion that gets missed. And it's, it's frustrating because I think it becomes like, it's this problem we're trying to prevent when it's the opposite. It's a solution we're not harnessing.

Beth: [00:48:39] And that makes the political reality so much harder to swallow when you know that you think, how on earth are we not getting comprehensive immigration reform? The country needs it so badly. And yet our conversations about it are just behind where the data is and what the needs of the country are and so [00:49:00] I don't want to sound at all defensive of the Biden administration in the segment. That was my worry in putting it together. 

I do want to put into context what has been done so far and what can be done when you are only using one branch of a government, um, and not the branch with the most power to do things in this arena. And, and Congress is just going to have to come along to move us as far as we need to go.

Sarah: [00:49:26] Well, and I think, look, we can't have this conversation and say, boy, it's so confusing as to why people can't see this as the solution that it is without talking about race. There is real racism involved when how we talk about immigrants from Mexico and central America and that cultural conversation. Real motivation to prop up white supremacy. To, to, to some people America means white and immigration is a threat to that and we have to acknowledge that and deal with it, you know, sort of open eyed, I think, [00:50:00] and acknowledged that a huge part of this conversation and a huge part of the, the fear-mongering and the political opportunism is driven by race.

Beth: [00:50:09] So many people, when you bring up racism and white supremacy also hear it only in terms of moralizing. The economic cost to this country right now of white supremacy is enormous. We are held back so greatly by clinging to the notion that being an American looks one way or that power should be concentrated in one kind of person.

We are just, we are destroying ourselves because of those beliefs and because of our resistance to opening up decision-making power markets, uh, to new ideas and to people who haven't been represented in the seats of power in this spaces before. And so again, like if you are kind of tired of being told that [00:51:00] we should do these things because they're kindhearted, combating racism has a lot of data behind it as well.

Sarah: [00:51:07] Yeah, and I'm encouraged. I feel like that conversation is shifting, you know, Heather McGee has a new book out and she wrote a really great piece in the New York times. And, you know, she uses in particular the, the history of public pools and how communities would just punish themselves in pursuit of white supremacy. You know, shut down pools white kids swim in just to prevent black people from swimming in them. 

And there are a million examples of that in America, where we pursue racism at the expense of our own benefit, you know, and I, it is, it is frustrating, but we have to name that and we have to say that, and we have to say the solution is not just altruism and the motivation is not just shame. We have to motivate people to see how these policies and how these priorities benefit them instead of just saying, if you disagree with them, you're a bad person. 

[00:52:00] Beth: [00:52:00] And that's miserable too, because you don't want to commoditize any human being. I really dislike immigration programs that are merit-based, this idea that we only look at people as economic engines and who will add the most to our economy.

I think that it's flawed thinking in a lot of ways, um, economically too, in terms of the data, but it feels wrong to me and the argument I am most comfortable making about and against white supremacy is a moral one. I just want to acknowledge that, there are other arguments too and I think a fuller conversation in places where there is resistance, a fuller conversation about that is in order.

Sarah: [00:52:52] Beth, it's your birthday today as we are recording on Thursday, March 4th. You have turned 40 years old and you had an [00:53:00] ah-ha moment and I can't wait to hear it.

Beth: [00:53:01] I was thinking about my birthday while I was cleaning. I hate cleaning, but I have all my best insights while I'm cleaning. I'm pretty sure. I think that there is something really important about just the energy of making room for things that happens in your brain when you're cleaning.

And I'm actually doing this yoga series side note with Dr. Melissa West, that focuses on giving you things to meditate on while you're cleaning, because she believes that you have to clear the cobwebs of your heart. I think that's beautiful. Okay. So the insight, while I was cleaning, that came up for me was that I have spent every year of my life, where I have had the capacity to do this, in some kind of leadership role. 

All through school, all through college, less in law school, but law school was preparing me to be a lawyer and so my first professional job was in that advisor [00:54:00] position and then I moved into management and true leadership positions in an organization and then to business coaching and, and just in my friendships, you know, I have positioned myself as a leader or advisor in every aspect of my life for the entirety of it and I'm ready to take a break from that. 

I grew up with a really strong ethic that like, if you have a gift, then you have a corresponding responsibility to use that gift and I don't think that's wrong. And I think that that was a very good ethic to instill in me and I also think that it can be taken to extremes and that's what I've done in my life. And I think I've done it at the expense of focusing on my physical body and my relationships and just like fun in general.

And I have done, I have been slowly shedding that, but I really want to hit the accelerator on shedding that here in my 40th year. I've quit a lot of things. I [00:55:00] intend to quit some more things. Uh, it feels good to quit things. If it's hard and it hurts and then it also feels really good on the other side of it.

And I just want to be more. I want to, I just want to be more, I want to have days where I sit and read a book instead of do something productive and I want to lean harder into the many beautiful relationships that I'm so lucky to have in my life. I mean, you gave me such a generous gift, Sarah, in putting together this Instagram collage of, of people I care about.

And I just want more and more of that and less and less of here are the minutes from the April 2nd meeting. Does everyone approve? You know, I'm, I just I'm ready to make room for the good stuff. I feel so much more sentimental and I want more of that in my life. 

Sarah: [00:55:48] I love that. I think that is the most beautiful intention and, you know, I feel it profoundly. My favorite quote from Stephen Colbert, I love the thing I [00:56:00] wish most had not happened. And that's, I think that's what the shooting at my high school just put in my cells is life is here to live. Life is here to live, not to master. And it's still, it's not that I never fell for that message over time because it, is everywhere. 

It is everywhere, that life is here to master instead of just to, to live and enjoy. And I, you know, your presence in my life has just been it's just been magic. I just feel like in the same way that when I married Nicholas and when I became a mom, like I Le I leveled and your friendship and partnership is just allowed me to level up.

And so I love you so much, and I'm so happy that you were born and that we get to tackle 40 together. And I love I'm going to just do everything in my power to be live out that intention and just to make this [00:57:00] the best decade of both of our lives. 

Beth: [00:57:02] Wow. I could not agree more with saying all of that back to you. I, I want to have more space for that sense of like, here's this thing that's helping me level up instead of constantly like orienting myself as the person who's supposed to do that for everyone else. Because I think a huge gift of our partnership is that you don't really need me and I, I know that that sounds that you might dispute the way I just said that, but you don't need me, like you don't fall apart and call me and expect me to put you back together.

We share hard things and that's different from yes, this person is the rock and this person needs the rock and I feel like what I'm so happy about in my life right now is that so many of my relationships are like that. Where we just, we, we go through hard things together and I allow other people to teach me things.

And, you know, whenever I talked to my friend Anna I'm like, God, you're so much smarter than I am. [00:58:00] Like you're so you have so much more wisdom than I do and I love, love that. I'm so delighted by that and so just just taking myself out of the constant pressure. And I'm not mad at anybody who was part of any other chapter of my life.

I have been so lucky and have had such wonderful relationships with people. This is a me thing. This is, this is my intention, right? Because my intention to this point has always really been like, how can I be all the things for everyone? And I'm much more ready to just be here with everyone. 

Sarah: [00:58:28] No, I don't dispute that. I would say I do not need you, but I desperately enjoy you. And I'm so glad you're a part of my life. 

Beth: [00:58:34] Thank you. I desperately enjoy you and all of you.

Sarah: [00:58:37] Happy Birthday!

Beth: [00:58:38] Thank you all.

Sarah: [00:58:38] Happy Birthday. Yes, we desperately enjoy the Pantsuit Politics community without a doubt. Thank you for joining us for another episode, we will be back in your ears on Tuesday and until then, keep it nuanced y'all.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams. Ali Edwards, Martha Bronitsky, Amy Whited, 

Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph, Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie LaDow, Emily Neesley,  

Allison Luzader. Tracey Puthoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Kohrs, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johansson. The Kriebs! 

Beth: Shari Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. Sarah Greenup

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise Napp1 Comment