The border "debate"

One of the most baffling issues in the debate about the US border is the macro level solution is already known and has been written up in Congress, yet we're still having debates that don't get past square one. In the media, the "debate" about the US-Mexico border usually amounts to two sides yelling at each other with their fingers in their ears, each selectively ignoring the truth in the other side's argument and the fact that they need to cooperate to solve the problem:

A. Security side: "We have to protect our borders to secure our country from criminals, drugs, violence."

vs.

B. Humanitarian side: "Most illegal migrants coming across the border and in the US are not criminals. Even if they're illegal, they're humans just like all the immigrants in the past. We should treat them like humans not enemies. You can't deport millions of people already here, there has to be a path to citizenship."

Of course, it's a false choice. Both of these are true, and having more security is a humanitarian thing to do, being more humane promotes security. The real problem, to state the obvious, is timing. You can't offer asylum for those already here until you seal the border, otherwise the promise of asylum will be an incentive, a magnet, for many more to come across a porous border illegally. Don't turn on the magnet until the border is secure.

In fact, a path to citizenship and sealing the border work hand in hand toward security in concrete ways, they're not at odds. To follow the path to citizenship, those who are already here will have to go through background checks, weeding out the criminals--either those who don't pass the background check or those who choose not to follow the path to citizenship and remain in hiding after a given deadline, risking deportation. Who could argue with this?

The bipartisan Gang of Eight in the Senate knew this, and wrote it up in a bill that passed the Senate 68-32 in 2013. That's a pretty huge margin given how controversial immigration is. Yet, even though top Republicans like McCain and Rubio wrote the bill, a few extremists in the House messed it up by letting time expire, and the bill died. It's one of Congress' biggest squandered opportunities in recent memory. It's a good example of one of the weaknesses of democracy that the Federalist papers identified: that one small faction can mess it up for everybody else. And we're still arguing today about a problem we already solved on paper in 2013. As McCain said, "We're getting nothing done."

Like Nike said, just do it.