Democrat’s curt rejection of President’s immigration proposal looks like bad faith
Moving to end the government shutdown, yesterday President Trump added four elements to his demand for a border wall, hoping to lure Democratic leaders to soften their “no wall” position. The President’s proposal offers:
- Three years of “legislative relief” allowing children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, who have registered under the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation, legally able to work and attend school.
- A three-year extension of temporary protected status (TPS) for 300,000 immigrants facing deportation, allowing them to remain in the country.
- A “new” system enabling Central American minors to apply for asylum in the U.S. from their home countries, so they can avoid a dangerous, solo journey to the U.S.
- Weekly bipartisan meetings at the White House to work toward a comprehensive immigration policy.
Assuming Congress can agree on immigration legislation within three years — I find it interesting that the time window extends beyond the 2020 election — those under DACA and TPS would be able to remain in the U.S. and, possibly, have a path to citizenship. (Arguably, that protection may not be necessary. While the Trump administration announced plans to rescind DACA and has moved to discontinue TPS for Salvadorans and Hondurans, legal challenges may ultimately prevent the administration from carrying out these intentions.)
The President’s proposal also includes the elements outlined in his televised speech on January 8:
- $800 million for humanitarian assistance.
- $805 million for drug detection technology.
- 2,750 new border agents and law enforcement staff.
- 75 new immigration judge teams to accelerate handling cases and reduce the backlog, which he said was “almost 900,000 cases.”
- $5.7 billion for the infamous wall, which he also described as “physical barriers” and “see-through steel barriers.”
He said the $5.7 billion would fund steel barriers in “high priority locations,” saying the new funding would “add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need.” 115 miles are already being built or have been contracted, according to the President.
The President restated his justification for the wall: illegal drugs, criminals, and gangs flowing across the border; the exploitation of children and women making the journey to the U.S., including sexual assault; and medical problems from the strenuous journey and living conditions at the border. He also claimed people in the U.S. illegally reduce wages and strain public services.
”If we build a powerful and fully designed see-through steel barrier on our southern border, the crime rate and drug problem in our country would be quickly and greatly reduced. Some say it could be cut in half… A steel barrier will help us stop illegal immigration, while safely directing commerce to our lawful ports of entry. — President Donald Trump
Democratic response
The Democratic leadership immediately rejected the President’s proposal.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, characterized the proposal as “one sided and ineffective,” calling on the President to open the government as a precondition before the Democrats and Republicans “can have a civil discussion and come up with bipartisan solutions.”
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, dismissed the President’s proposal as a “non-starter.”
“The president must sign these bills to reopen government immediately and stop holding the American people hostage with this senseless shutdown.” — Nancy Pelosi, quoted by The Washington Post
Conservatives aren’t happy either
Ironically, some conservatives are also unhappy with the President’s proposal, accusing him of offering amnesty.
Ann Coulter — one of several vocal conservatives whose criticism of the earlier bipartisan legislation caused the President to backtrack on his commitment to sign it, which led to the shutdown — accused the President of offering amnesty in exchange for the wall.
Democrats should engage
The President’s movement suggests he perceives his support is eroding, despite boasting to Pelosi and Schumer he would be “proud to shut down the government.” News reports suggest growing disapproval among both Republications and the country.
The Democratic response suggests they feel they hold such a strong hand there’s no need to move from their position: first reopen the government, then we’ll talk.
While the President’s proposal doesn’t mirror the earlier bipartisan legislation that was headed to his desk before he pulled the plug, it does reopen discussion of DACA and TPS. That seems like progress, worthy of acknowledgement, even encouragement, by the Democratic leadership, a sign of their willingness to find a solution to end the shutdown. A meeting to resume negotiations would quickly show whether the President’s proposal is serious or a public relations ruse. If the latter, the Democrats could say, “We tried, but the President wasn’t serious.”
For the Democrats to curtly reject the President’s offer without engaging seems like bad faith and deafness to the plight of 800,000 federal workers who are not being paid, their financial situations increasingly dire. The choice between holding out for the President to capitulate and a reasonable compromise that gets federal workers back to work heavily favors turning the lights of government back on.
It’s going to be a long two years — likely unimaginable — if the President, Democratic-led House, and Republican-led Senate can’t find a way to govern. We won’t have to fear a military attack by Russia or China, our government will simply implode.
Beyond the tweets
The immigration and border security debate keeps getting hijacked by Twitter-style hyperbole, which oversimplifies this complex, multidimensional issue to paint it as one policy extreme or another.
Multiple approaches are available to address the issues, including all the items the President outlined — even a wall where appropriate. Nonetheless, even implementing these “solutions,” we won’t ever end the reasons people leave poor, politically unstable countries seeking a better life in the U.S. or the demand for drugs that fuels smuggling into the country.
Last week, The Daily podcast featured a rational discussion of the challenges and possible “solutions” for border security. Michael Barbaro interviewed U.S. Representative Will Hurd, a Republican who represents the 23rd congressional district of Texas, which extends along the southwest border with Mexico. This conversation is worth listening to because it is a thoughtful, informative, and nuanced discussion of border security, much more insightful than warring tweets.
