The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal today on "Pelosi's Dreamer Pawns": https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-dreamer-pawns-11548103367?mod=hp_opin_pos2 Pelosi’s Dreamer Pawns Democrats won’t talk even after Trump offers extended legal status. 814 Comments By The Editorial Board Jan. 21, 2019 3:42 p.m. ET Democrats rejected Donald Trump’s compromise on immigration even before it was offered on Saturday, and that by itself should be instructive for the American public. Do Democrats want a deal to reopen the government and offer new security for more than a million immigrants, or do they want to use them as pawns against Mr. Trump? On the evidence so far, the answer is the latter. Mr. Trump’s offer of extended legal status for young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children, as well as to Central Americans and others with expiring visas, would provide relief against deportation for hundreds of thousands. Isn’t this something Democrats want, or at least profess to? Democrats have sent a million press releases claiming to care about the Dreamers, Haitians, and those fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. It’s true Mr. Trump has held out this offer before only to renege. But here’s a new chance to get Mr. Trump’s signature on a legislative fix, at least for some years, without relying on the vagaries of courts and executive orders. In return Mr. Trump wants money for border security and his wall, but political compromise means both sides get something. The wall may be a poisonous word for Democrats, but the President has already walked back his original demands. He is now talking about “steel barriers at high-priority locations,” not across all 2,000 miles. A fence of some kind already exists across 700 or so miles, the Administration is building another 115, and Mr. Trump wants to build another 230. Mr. Trump is wrong that this will magically reduce drug traffic or illegal crossings. The solution to the flood of drugs is lower U.S. demand. The best solution for illegal crossings is a legal system that gives migrants the chance to move back and forth depending on the needs of the U.S. economy. But compromise has to start somewhere given the polarization on immigration. And there will be no chance for a larger compromise on guest workers or the 11 million undocumented residents in the U.S. until illegal flows are reduced. Surely Democrats understand this political reality after two decades of legislative frustration. If they want more than Mr. Trump is offering, then negotiate and ask for it. Note that Mr. Trump is taking flack from bitter-enders on the right for even this concession. But Mr. Trump is right to say he isn’t proposing “amnesty,” despite restrictionist claims. The 700,000 or so Dreamers were brought here as children and broke no laws in coming. The 300,000 or so residents on Temporary Protected Status were granted legal visas and have mostly become productive job holders. Perhaps Mr. Trump is realizing that the GOP’s no-compromise restrictionists have given bad advice from the start. They told him in January 2017 to rush out a travel ban that was a political and legal debacle. They told him to get tough on families on the border; that ended up with the child-separation fiasco. They also told him to reject an immigration compromise when Republicans still held the House so they could use the issue in the 2018 election. They lost 40 seats and the House. The only way Mr. Trump has a chance to get more money for border security now is to give Democrats something they want. *** Mr. Trump’s offer has the benefit of testing Democratic sincerity. Democrats claim they won’t negotiate while 25% of the government is shut down, but why should Mr. Trump assume they’ll negotiate in good faith if he agrees to their budget terms? Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said she won’t provide a penny for something called a wall. Her refusal to negotiate even after Mr. Trump’s new offer suggests that she’s concerned that Mr. Trump might get some credit for a bipartisan immigration victory. Like restrictionist pundits, the left doesn’t want to solve the problem. They want immigration as a perpetual campaign issue and TV-rating fodder. If the Dreamers are legalized on Mr. Trump’s watch, the President will have accomplished what Democrats didn’t. They helped to scuttle George W. Bush’s reform in 2007 when they controlled Congress. They did nothing on immigration when they controlled the entire government with a Senate supermajority in 2009. Barack Obama then resorted to illegal executive orders rather than negotiate with a House GOP majority. Now that Democrats have another chance with Mr. Trump, will they take it? They may want to hold out until the Supreme Court rules on the Obama-Trump orders, but Mr. Trump’s leverage rises with a Court victory. Democrats should strike a deal now that the President is willing—unless their real purpose is to use immigrants as pawns and deny Mr. Trump even a modest political victory.
Why not just open the government without wall, dreamers etc. Also dreamers are already protected for like a year. Trumps offer doesn't really offer much for them.
Thought the Democrats were (uncharacteristically) clear that they won’t negotiate with the shutdown ongoing. The particulars of the offer don’t matter. But this concession is weak sauce anyway. A temporary reprieve might be worth a temporary wall.
yea, trump and the republicans are looking out for the dreamers alright... that's why you have to read the fine print when dealing with flim flam artists...
That's actually a really good addition to the law that would discourage children from being put in harms way. Have children apply for asylum ahead of time so that they remain safe. Don't really see why people would oppose it....well, other than "orange man bad"
The vast majority who seek "asylum" from those countries are merely economic migrants trying to exploit the refugee system thinking it'll get them into the country and by "vast majority" I mean upwards of 80%. You also have children dying on the journey being used as pawns by their parents or unrelated adults who pretend they are their children thinking that it'll help them get into the country. If you take away the incentive to use these children, you protect them. Legitimate asylum seekers can still seek asylum, but the children can no longer be used as pawns and put in danger. It's a win-win. Now that said, if you happen to like how children are being exploited and put in danger, feel free to defend that point of view.
That’s what nancy should do lol. You give three years of dreamer extension, dems will give temporary plastic fencing
They basically came up with something that would gut DACA and asylum and try to pass it off as compromise. In reality, they are trying to win the PR war and have 0 interest in actually trying to end the shutdown.
