I can't agree with Sargent's analysis. The Dems may well love the idea of triangulating with moderate GOP House members, but the political value to be gained is less than the political cost of allowing the border to descend back into the kind of mess which has been common in recent years. That's just a political reality. So as much as the Dems want reform, I think the Admin believes ( and I would agree) that they will lose all credibilty with the moderate voter if they can be cast as just 'leaving the door wide open', at which point their ability to do that triangulation disappears. Basically Sargent argues the Admin gains credibility by being less severe at the border, but my reading would be the opposite. It's absolutely true it's cruel policy but that Suburban voter expects a competent government to be able to create some kind of orderly process. The current 'asylum' system is completely broken and 100% gamed by the vast majority that are trying to move for economic reasons. The US has to re-establish a credible reality that if you don't have a valid asylum claim, you are not crossing the border and that valid asylum claims are not trivial to prove. That is the only thing that will eventually stop the chaos.
If that is established, then maybe there can be more reasonable discussions about upping admission levels. But as long as legal admission levels have little to do with actual entry rates, I don't think there is any political route to get there.