The Daily Show: Ears Edition - Jonathan Blitzer Talks U.S. Immigration Reform | Steven Levitsky On Improving Our Democracy

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

Jonathan Blitzer, staff writer at the New Yorker, joins Jon Stewart to discuss his book "Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here" and how varying political dynamics halt the progress of immigration reform in the United States. Then, Harvard University professor Steven Levitsky, co-author of the bestsellers “Tyranny of the Minority” and "How Democracies Die," joins Jon to talk about how the Founding Fathers shaped elected democracy through improvisation, the challenge of constitutional reform, and the importance of improving and evolving democratic institutions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Survivor 47 is here, which means we're bringing you a brand new season of the only official survivor podcast on fire. And this season we are joined by fan favorite and Survivor 46 runner-up, Charlie, Charlie, I'm excited to do this together. Thanks, Jeff. So excited to be here, and I can't wait to bring you inside the mind of a survivor player for season 47. Listen to On Fire the official Survivor podcast starting September 18th wherever you get your podcast. You're listening to today and show my guest tonight covers immigration for the New Yorker. His new book is called Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here, the United States and Central America and the making of a crisis.

Please welcome to the program Jonathan Blitzer. Sir. Thank you for joining us. First things first. Uh, thanks. First things first. What are you doing to me? I have a family, I have a life. This is a very long book.

You don't have to read the notes. Oh, I didn't have to read the whole... Oh, son of a bitch! What an incredibly thorough documentation of the causes of the immigration crisis, the discussions that have been going on through multiple administrations. In your mind, what has us trapped in this sort of sysophysian nightmare? Yeah. I mean for years and years we've watched kind of in this loop as politicians in Washington say we can't pass comprehensive immigration reform

because of the situation of the border. And yet, the situation of the border is in a state of chaos because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform. And as a result, the asylum system at the southern border, has born the brunt of the otherwise failing system. And the the lawmaker's in Washington, to justify their inaction, and action, and the the the the the the the the thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiolk. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. And thoom. And yet yet, and yet, and yet yet is thiolome. And yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, and yet. And yet, and yet. And yet. And yet. And, and yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet yet is is is thia is thia is thiolk is thia, and yet is thia. thia. thia. thoen, thoomorrow is thoomorrow is the thoomorrow is the tho tho tho tho toea. toea. toea. toea. to the border to justify their inaction, and the border is in the state of chaos that it is because of inaction in Washington. Right. I almost never hear politicians talking about how many people can you absorb.

I mean when you tell me there's going to be two million people coming through the southern border and they are just, you know, being kind of logged and released. That sounds utterly chaotic and a recipe for disaster, but how many people can this country absorb? What do we need for economic growth? What is a better system? I feel like we never talk about that. We just react to images of chaos. Absolutely. I mean, we can't talk about one aspect of the immigration system without view of the other.

And so if we're only ever talking about the southern border, we're missing the entire kind of picture that we need to better understand. But just as an example, you know, right now, the, and you don't take my word for it, I mean, the chairman. No, I do. You should. You're the only one. Until you read the footnotes, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, you know, economists across the country, everyone is pointing to the fact that immigrant labor has essentially kept this country's economy

afloat following the COVID years. And so, you know, this is the engine of growth. The population is getting older. What about that immigrant labor can be more easily exploited, is paid less, starts to depress wages for a lot of other people? Is that not accurate? I don't think it is entirely. I think it's a much more accurate.

So it's somewhat accurate. Reasonably accurate. Well, until there are ways of absorbing an immigrant labor force legally into the country, there are always going to be opportunities for employers to exploit the undocumented and in the process to drive down working wages. And so the idea is there needs to be a thoroughgoing reform of the system. And the problem is, of course, that in Washington, that's been dead on arrival now for decades. And so we're kind of in this doom loop where the border

where the border is to approach this broader problem is to deal with every aspect of the system. This is where you drop us like a little drop of sunshine and you say, but here's the good news. Yeah. Go. Go. What's in here? No! I would say the good news is that from a policy perspective, at least doing some of the things to relieve pressure at the southern border are no great mystery to lawmakers. I mean the problem of course is the politics, but it doesn't require any great feat of the imagination. This is not a complexity beyond the imagination of human beings. Correct. And we don't have to restabilize areas we destabilized to really get a handle on it. It's about fixing the system of influx. I mean I think you know overall the only way to kind of deal

with migration trends in the world is to understand the forces in a global context and that means that the United States has to be more mindful of the consequences of its foreign policy it has to work with with partners in the region you know all very realistic things. I blacked out when you said, you said something about mindful foreign policy and I just started thinking about you too in the sphere. I don't know what's going on. But I will say this, you know, one of the way, you know, reforming the asylum system

specifically is a complex task. And I do think the the the the the the the they of of of of of they of the the the the the the the the the the a complex task. And I do think some hard decisions have to be made about kind of reckoning with the population of people showing up at the southern border and kind of understanding what the limits are of the asylum system as we know it. But before we get to a point of having to make these major sacrifices to a system that I think really should be a core part of American policy, for ethical reasons and just for straight ahead policy reasons. Branding, for non-sex.

To say nothing else, there are things that could be done, basic things like sending more money to the government to hire more asylum officers, more immigration judges. These things sound boring, they sound wonky, and very specifically, Republicans in Congress are trying to block these very straight ahead basic measures from taking place, just basic funding measures, because they benefit.... they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they they th, thrying to block these very straight-ahead basic measures from taking place, just basic funding measures, because they benefit from increased chaos at the southern border. Right. So there are things that could be done that will not, they're not a silver bullet. You have, there's no hope until after the election to even address any of it. I mean it's

pretty overwhelming to see right now Republicans in Congress basically say we're not going to touch this. I mean, they've said it explicitly. This isn't my interpretation. This is the greatest danger to America, you know, maybe ever, and we're not going to do anything because we think it's a great issue. I mean, that's truly devious. Yeah. And well, and the plot of that playing out was the administration, the Biden administration, went to Congress and said we need more money to

increase resources in the southern border and... But they were slow on the uptick as well. Absolutely, and then there's plenty that the Biden administration could be faulted for. They go to Congress, they ask for money. That doesn't work because Republican say no no no we want to see further changes to to to to to to the to the negotiating table, makes a series of compromises that Democrats were not comfortable making years ago. I mean pretty significant changes just in their own orientation in this conversation and they finally broker this deal. I mean this isn't just a democratic effort. This is a bipartisan group in the Senate doing this. Before the terms of the deal are even announced you have to his Senate members, listen, you know, the politics of this, I think the phrase he used as it was reported, was the politics have changed.

And the politics having changed were Trump came out against this negotiation. And so it was very clear, I mean a very clear calculation was made. Yeah. That we benefit from the situation getting worse. It's so tough because McConnell's usually so idealistic. It's just hard to see. I was shocking. It's so so so so so so so so so so so so so the s a s a s a s a s a s a s a s a s a s, the s, the s, th. the s, th. th. th. th. th. th. th. thi. th. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. Yeah, thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. the thi. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. theeeea. thi. thi politics, thi. thi. thi. thi. thi. th just hard to see. I was shocked. It's shocking, geez, self-serving politics. That's not the guy I know. Yeah. Everyone who is gone is here.

It's available. Jonathan Blitzer. We're going to take it away. Thank you so much. Streaming soon on Paramount Plus. This is Dr. Frazier Crane. I'm listening. He's back again. Hey dad, I got a question about punctuation. Ooh. No, stay on task. And he's more Frazier than ever. How do I look? Rich. Just what I was going for. Oh my god. They traded your baby for wine! Do you really think we would trade John for white Zinfandel? Or any wine? Frazier, new season streaming September 19th on Paramount Plus.

Welcome back to the Daily Show, my guest tonight. A professor of government at Harvard University, he is the co-author of two best-selling books, How Democracies Die and Tyranny of the Minority. Please welcome to the program Stephen Levitsky. Sir. Oh, the book is called The Tyranny of the Minority. Look at the tyranny. What is, so youanny of the Minority. What is, so you wrote how democracies die, a recipe to kill our democracy, and now tyranny the minority.

What is tyranny the minority about? Well, when we wrote How Democracies Die many years ago now, before it seemed so imminent to some of the Americans that that democracy is in danger. We wanted to write a book that described for Americans what it looks like when a democracy gets into trouble. I studied Latin America, my co-author Daniel studies Europe in the interwar period. We've seen democracies get in trouble, we've seen democracies die and we wanted to describe to Americans what this looked like, so they would be warned. After we wrote the book, we got a lot of questions about what the hell do we do?

How do we get out of this mess? And so the book is an effort, first of all, to better understand how we got into this mess, but also to think a bit about how to get out. So how, when you talk about how we get in in in in in in in the mess in the mess in the mess in the mess in the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess the mess? the the the the the the the the the the thetalk about how we get into the mess, the Constitution is really our, you know, touchstone. Is that the document that actually got us into this mess? The Constitution, I should say, is a brilliant document. It is the world's oldest written constitution. It's done us a lot of good. But it is also part of the

problem today. We, a majority of Americans support democracy, a majority of Americans support the really interesting experiment with multiracial democracy that we are evolving into in the 21st century. A majority of Americans every day since Donald Trump came down the golden escalator have opposed Trump. But we have a constitution that protects, that enables, and that empowers an authoritarian minority party. And that's a problem.

But isn't that the very nature of the Constitution was the contradiction at its, when it was being written, all men are created equal. Black people are three-fifths. I mean, it's a mathematical equation that from the get-go was absurd. It was absurd. Now, in some fairness to the founders, the elites across the world were undemocratic in the 18th century. But over the course of 200 plus years, democracies across the world have undemocratic in the 18th century, but over the course of 200 plus

years, democracies across the world have gone about fixing the original cities. So you're saying the Constitution was a balance between that ideal and the practicalities of, well how do we let the southern states who have less population not be steamrolled by a pure democracy? Right. It was a couple things. First of all, it was a document created by people who feared democracy, who feared majority rule. Because the majority rule didn't exist in the world in the 18th century. What did they think, what did they think it was going to be?

They didn't know. They were in completely new terrain. There had never been a republic like this before. We'd never had an elected leader before. The Electoral College was a third choice. It wasn't Madison's first choice. Madison designed a system that would have looked more like Europe's parliamentary democracies. That was shot down. A number of folks in the convention pushed for direct election of the president, which is what all other presidential democracies in the world today do, that got voted down. Because the South, not even for a unitary executive. Didn't they push for the executive would be a panel, would be a group of individuals?

There were, that was one suggestion. But so they were, they were, they were scrambling, right? They did, they couldn't, they couldn't reach a majority and the president, they...... And, they, they, they, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the the, the the th. th. the th. th. the th. th. the thi. the the thi, the the thi, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't. the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the they.e.e.e. Wea. the theto elect a president. So the electoral college was an improvisation. It was an experiment. Was it an improvisation to bring a compromise to the southern states? Is that because the north was more industrialized and the south and the smaller states? Right. So this was the compromise to bring the union together? Yeah, I mean, this was a really tough problem, right? We had 13 colonies that were, and there was a fear that they would break apart, that

there might be civil war, that there might be violence, the articles of confederation had failed miserably, and there was a real fear that if we didn't hang together, the Brits or the French would come in and make these very difficult. The whole project could be blown to th. thus, thus, th. thus, th. th. th. th. th. th. thii, thi, thi, thi, thi, thi, thi, thi, thi, thi, their, their, their, their, their, their their, there was, there was, there there there there there there there there there there there there there there there might there might there might there might there there there there, there there, there, there there, there there, there, there there, there, there there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there there there there there there there there there there there there the, the, the, the, thee, there's there's there there there there might there there might there might there might be there might be there bit. So these guys had to forge a compromise and they made concessions that were imperfect. In fact, George Washington, let me just say this. George Washington just weeks after the Philadelphia convention wrote a letter to his nephew describing the constitution as an imperfect document and saying that it would be up to future generations to improve on it. But do you think it's strange then that a lot of the Constitution really is a practical matter, sort of a pragmatic document that is very much nuts and bolts of how do we do

this mechanically, logistically, and yet we infuse such almost religious dogma. We almost view the founders now in a kind of a fundamentalist way of it was spoken through them from God. It was they were absolutely sure this is scripture. Right, we didn't always see it that way. For much of US history, Americans, both politicians and American citizens of all types have worked to make our system more democratic. The expansion of suffers, the reconstruction reforms, the progressive reform. But oftentimes that was, the reconstruction reforms, the progressive reform. But oftentimes that was brought through violent upheaval.

I mean, the civil war is what brought that about suffragette. Even the Vietnam war when they lowered the voting age, if there hadn't have been the drive, if people hadn't had gone to Vietnam, I don't think you would have seen the expansion of voting to 18-year-year thal reform is tough. It's costly. It takes work, but we've done it throughout our history. And it's really only the last 50 years, only in our lifetimes, that we've kind of stopped thinking about how to make our system more democratic. We stop doing the work of improving our democracy.

Let me ask you, and this is a slightly different point than. You know, some may be it's the design of the Constitution that allows for rural states to have maybe an outsized influence, especially in the Senate, which is a relatively minotarian body to begin with. One person can blue slip something, people can constantly stop things as one person, and that person is always Rand Paul. No. But, but is there also an issue that you, people can that person is always Rand Paul. No. But is there also an issue that, as the world changes so rapidly, is democracy foundationally an analog system, and that in an increasingly digital and fast world, it's unwieldy even in its best iteration.

And is that what also gives a kind of shine to the idea of dictatorship or authoritarian principles, where things can be mobilized more quickly, decisions can be made? You know, democracy is painstaking. It's a grind. It is. And this is not the first time we've been around this band, right? In a century ago, whether it was the Russian Revolution or the rise of fascism, during a period of dramatic change, industrialization, the entry into the modern era, people looked around

and said, yeah, Stalin, that that that works better. Hitler, Mussolini, that that works better. Made the trains run on time. Turns out in the long run there are costs to dictatorship and that dictatorships don't, they may shine for a while, but in the long run you don't much like the results. So we always have to be, the, to to be, to be, to be, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, their, the, the, the, their, the, their, the, the, the, the, their, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, they. The, they.e, they.a, they.a, they.a, they.a, they.a, they.a, they.a, the.a, the.a, the.a, tha, thii.a, tha, that, that, that, that, the, that, the, run, you don't much like the results. So we always have to be, we've got old institutions, and we constantly have to be thinking about how to improve them. But the basic idea of electing our governments, and electing our governments in a context in which we enjoy a wide range of individual liberties. I don't think that's outdated.

Right. That stays no matter what the kids say on, I'm going to say Instagram. I think the kids are, kids get a bad rap sometimes. They are among the, our strongest defenders. Well, you teach them in college, so you see them. I see them. I find them to be fascinating. You know, there's always that, uh, millennials, there's a lady, or whatever. They're the ones who are going to our emerging multiracial today better. Somebody's got to.

The tourity and the minority. It's available right now. Stephen Levitsky. Thank you so much for being here. Explore more shows from the Daily Show, weeknights, the Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Fairmount Plus. This has been a comedy central podcast. you a brand new season of the only official survivor podcast on fire and this season we are joined by fan favorite and survivor 46 runner-up Charlie Davis to bring you even further

inside the action Charlie I'm excited to do this together. Thanks Jeff so excited to be here and I can't wait to bring you inside the mind of a survivor player for season 47th. Listen to on fire the official survivor podcast starting September 18th wherever you get your podcasts.