I have no idea who Sullivan thinks he is writing for these days.
I think he’s writing to appeal to his fellow liberals. It’s the only way I can square such an obviously contradictory piece. Consider the first few paragraphs:
You could think of the last week as a solid victory for the Democrats and for basic human decency. An utterly indefensible and morally foul policy of separating children from their parents is over for now. Trump backed down amid a torrent of his usual lies and refusal to take responsibility for anything. We found a line even today’s GOP would not cross (although we also found plenty who were indeed prepared to cross it).
But it is emphatically not the end of this story, not simply because there are more than 2,000 children still apart from their families, with very little hope of ever finding their parents again, but because none of the underlying reasons for this atrocity in the first place have been addressed. Nor are they likely to be addressed in the Congress today, as one of the latest GOP immigration bills staggers toward failure. Nor do the Democrats seem able, willing, or united enough to tackle the problem at its source, by finding a legislative compromise with the GOP and president, on both legal and illegal immigration. That means families in cages multiplying in the future; it means more endangered children; it means an even deeper coarsening of our moral values; it means more and more people in limbo; it means genuine refugees losing asylum and being deported back to their nightmares; and it portends even greater polarization ahead.
Ok, so far we have the typical liberal line. Which makes sense that if you want to appeal to liberals, you better start by establishing your liberal bona fides, your superior virtue, your Detest for all things Trump. But then the pivot:
The reason for that is simple: The United States has not allocated the resources, political and financial, to stem the wave of illegal immigrants into this country that is now rising again, or to enable genuine asylum cases to be adjudicated fairly and expeditiously. Our political system — incapacitated by tribalism — has been incapable of addressing the intensifying problem since the Bush administration. Obama was trapped by the same impasse as Trump now is, and detained families in camps. And the problem is acute. There are almost a third of a million asylum cases pending in the system; and, as David Frum has noted, it now takes up to nine months to process a single one. We also know that the Flores settlement that bars any detention of children with their parents past 20 days has not been invalidated or legislatively fixed.
Which means to say that in less than three weeks, we will be here again, with another excruciating dilemma. Do we set up vast tent cities and camps to imprison families indefinitely, or do we simply let these families go free, and hope they show up for a future court date? Either way, we solve nothing fundamental and leave a huge incentive for those trying to enter the U.S. illegally to bring children with them when they do. And that does happen. There is fraud and trafficking and opportunism as well as valid family-based escapes from violence and persecution, and it can be hard to tell one from the other.
Wait - what? You just said Trump’s policy was “utterly indefensible and mortally foul” - and then proceeded to concede that (1) Obama did it, too, (2) our processing of asylum cases has been overwhelmed by a huge influx coupled with inefficiency, (3) many of those asylum cases are not genuine, (4) the Flores decision exacerbates the problem and can’t be legislatively fixed, (5) the GOP can’t fix the problem without assistance from the Dems, which they won’t give, (6) this all puts Trump in a tough spot of choosing between mass detention and mass catch and release, and (7) this creates an incentive to bring children on the dangerous journey north.
Which is all true, but utterly belies the first two paragraphs. The piece then pivots back and forth a few more times. Fascinating reading.