According to Democrats, they want nothing more than to fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which President Donald Trump rescinded in early September due to it being unconstitutional. The registration program was a temporary fix to one of the country’s many significant immigration problems. It supposedly deferred immigration actions against people brought into the country illegally as minors but who have been here for quite some some time.
But it was a bad fix because of how it was done — via executive action instead of the legislature. Courts had already determined similar program for different classes of immigrants to be unconstitutional. According to the U.S. Constitution, presidents are to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch.
When Trump rescinded the program and told Congress to do its job of passing legislation to address the problem, Democrats screamed. President Obama wrote a dramatic Facebook post that didn’t address the little problem that his supposed temporary fix wasn’t a great solution. Months later, there is still no resolution.
Democrats claim to want amnesty for DACA recipients. At least some Republicans claim to want to fix the problems that lead to never-ending streams of non-citizens clamoring for amnesty, such as a porous border and irregular enforcement of the law. The Trump administration and some Republicans seek to end an incoherent immigration policy that is unbound to the needs of the country, particularly the needs of the non-elite portions of the country. All of these competing desires make now seem like a prime opportunity for an immigration compromise.
Early last week, President Trump hosted a cordial negotiation that made the compromise seem possible. But is it true that Democrats are willing to work toward a DACA compromise? They were unwilling to offer any concessions to get it — no wall, no drawdown of random visa lotteries, no de-emphasis on chain migration, no move to a Canadian- or Australian-style merit immigration system. In fact, one of their proposals would actually expand chain migration, by which family members can get an easier path to U.S. residency and citizenship than other applicants.
Also, that refusal to make concessions was before Sen. Dick Durbin blew up negotiations by leaking an out-of-context mean word about countries from which the United States brings in winners of random visa lotteries. If Democrats truly wanted to fix the problem of adults who arrived in the country illegally as minors, they probably would have passed something early in the Obama presidency when they also controlled the House and Senate. They had from 2008 to 2010 to do whatever they pleased.
And if Democrats truly wanted to fix the problems caused by lax borders, border security, and enforcement, they would be on board with each of those measures on the table now. Not fixing holes in the border, whether real or metaphorical, turns the issue into the new debt limit battle, in which fixes are required every few years.
DACA recipients are one of the smallest and easily the most popular group of the massive number of illegal residents of the country. Given that Democrats claim to want to help this popular group, why in the world would they not? Let’s first revisit the narrative of the previous week or so.
Setting A Narrative
Last week Durbin leaked that President Trump used a very mean word disparaging some countries from which the United States accepts many immigrants randomly, as opposed to purposefully. Immediately the Resistance — be they the media, Democratic activists, or ever-impotent members of the Republican establishment — stepped up to wail and freak out. The talking point immediately became that disparaging some third-world countries is obviously racist.
Not to be the dung in the punch bowl, but the context of Trump’s remarks, which ranged from in dispute to absent, is necessary before making such a claim with wild abandon. That’s because if Trump wants merit-based immigration, and he does, it doesn’t matter what type of country one comes from, but what type of candidate the individual applicant is. Under his plan, candidates would be ranked on their education, skills, language, and chance for success, not what type of country they come from.
If Trump was defending his decision to end temporary immigration status for people who were escaping 2001 earthquakes or other problems, it wouldn’t make sense for him to refer to those places as s***holes while also saying they have to go back. In fact, people who oppose returning El Salvadoreans say we can’t do it precisely because, well, it’s not a nice place to go back to. Here’s Sally Kohn, for instance:
Presumably, then, he was arguing against random visa lotteries that privilege certain countries or against the overuse of chain migration, at the expense of an immigration policy that meets the needs of current U.S. citizens, particularly those who are not economically privileged. But that’s a difficult thing to discuss. It’s easier for our elites in both parties and the media to grandstand and pose than to worry about the long-term economic, security, legal, and national sovereignty effects of a thoughtless immigration system.
When Dems/libs/Lefties/Progs “evolve,” they throw their own words from their own past under the bus and hope you never remember them.
OBAMA:
Those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.
2005
Obama and Schumer did the same thing with Immigration Reform in 2007. There was a compromise agreed upon (which I didn’t care for) but Obama and Schumer introduced the amendment that the temporary work visas would become permanent. This killed the deal, as was the designed intention.
Trump put forth as conciliatory and bipartisan a demeanor as he possibly could and, once again, the Democrats spit on it and act like the spoiled brats they are. Again, they don’t want solutions to the problems they themselves create; they want arguments.
DACA addresses the irresponsibility of illegal immigrants who have been lured here by liberal weakness. It is not the American taxpayer’s problem that the left made it known that our immigration laws will simply be ignored, so please come one come all and bring your entire family, too. But, now Trump, who has to deal with the unConstitutional mess Obama left behind is being threatened with government shutdown because he does not prioritize it to the incompetent idiots who created the mess satisfaction.
Trump tweeted this:
Dems only claim to want DACA.
What they want is open borders, all welcomed, no exceptions
It’s official. The Schumer Shutdown
So let it be written. So let it be done..
Would You Qualify for Legal Immigration to the U.S.?
Answer the following questions to find out
(The Raise Act, S.354, has been in committee since 02/13/2017. It was endorsed by President Trump last August, so it might be considered a reflection of his own thinking about revised immigration standards. )
@Greg: Well, thanks to liberals we are stocked up on lawn mowers, glass fillers, drug dealers and rapists. This nation owes NO ONE an obligation to accept them as an immigrant and since we have been flooded with poor, dependent, low-skilled persons (and their families) it is necessary to be a bit more selective. No longer is the only prerequisite that if you can get away with it, will you vote Democrat.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #6:
That’s just another lie, perpetuated by the Liar in Chief in the White House. The reality is entirely different, and there are solid numbers to prove it:
Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes
Trump’s populace base believe whatever he tells them. They’ll always find some excuse when the facts don’t support what he says. They’ll even find excuses when he changes his own story. Somebody will always trot out a specific shocking news story or anecdotal report that runs contrary to the statistical reality, and they’ll feel their bogus conclusions are completely vindicated. His recent political exploitation of Edwin Jackson’s death is a perfect example.
Try to apply similar logic regarding any of the endless innocent victims of idiots with handguns—a body count that grows by leaps and bounds daily—and see what happens.
@Greg:
Contrary to THAT lie is what some of us like to refer to as FACTS.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455642/re-illegal-immigration-and-crime
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992
And this doesn’t even take into account that every single illegal immigrant is a criminal, by virtue of entering and residing in the United States illegally.
We believe the facts. You use falsehoods to make your points whether you believe them or not.
You are of course referring to those zones where Democrats have ruled for decades, outlawed or severely restricted legal gun ownership and routinely release violent criminals from accountability. Most of these are also your vaunted sanctuary cities where crime is encouraged.