Trump: Give Me a Border Wall or I’ll Deport the Dreamers

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/trump-give-me-a-border-wall-or-ill-deport-the-dreamers.html

 

Donald Trump just made Democrats an offer they can’t accept. In a Friday-morning tweet, the president issued an ultimatum: Build me a border wall — and make it harder for legal immigrants to bring their foreign family members into the United States (a.k.a. “chain migration”) — or the Dreamers get it.

 

On Thursday, Breitbart reported that the GOP’s congressional leadership presented a nearly identical deal to House conservatives:

At least two House GOP members told Breitbart News that leadership — including Ryan — has been presenting the DACA deal to membership as something along these lines: In exchange for legislatively granting amnesty to recipients of DACA, Republicans will get funding for President Trump’s border wall, an end to chain migration including language from a bill from Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) that would do so, an end to the visa lottery, and E-Verify. That would be accompanied by various other border enforcement and interior enforcement measures on immigration. Most importantly, the deal would take those numbers of DACA recipients who would be granted amnesty legislatively out of the total of allowed legal immigrants per year — offsetting the damage that they do to the U.S. economy.

Perhaps these hard-line demands make tactical sense as an opening bid in negotiations. But Trump’s proposal is (almost certainly) dead on arrival as a final offer. Congressional Democrats have been unyielding in their opposition to a border wall, and have no interest in abetting drastic reductions to legal immigration (they are, however, probably open to ending the “diversity lottery”). And they’re not alone: In September, a USA Today survey found that less than 25 percent of congressional Republicansapproved of funding Trump’s border wall. Meanwhile, Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act — which would drastically reduce immigration by, among other things, ending “chain migration” — attracted sharp intra-party opposition, particularly in the Senate. In all likelihood, some far-right Republicans will vote against any bill that provides nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants (who are law-abiding, gainfully employed, and were brought to the U.S. as children) with legal status. Passing a DACA deal will require the votes of Democrats and pro-immigration Republicans. Trump’s demands are all but certain to lose such votes — especially since such lawmakers have reason to think that the president’s bluffing.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

He has every right to leverage this do nothing Congress into doing their jobs.

[Boiler 45,486]

Thanks for posting, about time.

[Unlockable 7,314]

I posted this in the Trump megathread.

 

i can’t lie, that is one heck of a leverage. To save the hundreds of thousands of dreamers they may have to sacrifice chain migration.

 

We’ll have to see how this plays out.

[Boiler 45,486]

Save from what?

[cyclone27 710]

Good plan!! 👍

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

[Unlockable 7,314]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

Save from what?

I guess I should have said “help” instead of save. Or give them official status or some kind of path to citizenship.

 

Last I read most don’t even have permanent residency. Unless I am mistaken.

[Boiler 45,486]

1 hour ago, NuestraUnion said:

I guess I should have said “help” instead of save. Or give them official status or some kind of path to citizenship.

 

Last I read most don’t even have permanent residency. Unless I am mistaken.

Huh?

 

They are illegally in the US. 

[Dashinka 24,492]

Why does the story say this is an offer the Democrats cannot accept?  

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I like E-Verify. It should have been mandatory a long time ago and US employers who knowingly hire illegals should receive stiff fines.

[yuna628 9,676]

It's interesting that those who loudly seem to support the policies as mentioned in the OP don't seem to understand that if such a system was utilized their spouses would be rejected. Has anyone actually taken the time to research the RAISE act?

 

Most of us seem to agree E-verify is good, and I'd like to see across the board reforms.... the RAISE act isn't it.

[Boiler 45,486]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

It's interesting that those who loudly seem to support the policies as mentioned in the OP don't seem to understand that if such a system was utilized their spouses would be rejected. Has anyone actually taken the time to research the RAISE act?

 

Most of us seem to agree E-verify is good, and I'd like to see across the board reforms.... the RAISE act isn't it.

They would reject USC's?

 

You have lost me.

[yuna628 9,676]

Just now, Boiler said:

They would reject USC's?

 

You have lost me.

Foreign spouses.

 

But hey, if we quantified USCs in the same way, there's so many that wouldn't make the cut either...

[Boiler 45,486]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Foreign spouses.

 

But hey, if we quantified USCs in the same way, there's so many that wouldn't make the cut either...

Probably not too late to edit your post.