The border wall between Tecate, Mexico and Tecate, CA last month
Multiple sources report that Donald Trump stabbed Dreamers in the back last night — as well as Democratic leaders who were foolish enough to give Mr. Trump the time of day (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON — The White House on Sunday delivered to Congress a long list of hard-line immigration measures that President Trump is demanding in exchange for any deal to protect the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, imperiling a fledgling bipartisan push to reach a legislative solution.
Before agreeing to provide legal status for 800,000 young immigrants brought here illegally as children, Mr. Trump will insist on the construction of a wall across the southern border, the hiring of 10,000 immigration agents, tougher laws for those seeking asylum and denial of federal grants to “sanctuary cities,” officials said.
The White House is also demanding the use of the E-Verify program by companies to keep illegal immigrants from getting jobs, an end to people bringing their extended family into the United States, and a hardening of the border against thousands of children fleeing violence in Central America. Such a move would shut down loopholes that encourage parents from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to send their children illegally into the United States, where many of them melt into American communities and become undocumented immigrants.
…
Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi, who declared after a White House dinner last month that they had reached a deal with Mr. Trump to protect Dreamers, denounced the president’s demands as failing to “represent any attempt at compromise.” They called it little more than a thinly veiled effort to scuttle negotiations even before they begin in earnest.
…
There was absolutely NOTHING “pragmatic” about the high-profile photo-op in the Oval Office last month, where Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi eagerly sought the limelight of a “deal” (and, of course poured salt and lemon into the wounds of the GOP inflicted by Mr. Trump since taking office). Mr. Trump is an out-of-control lunatic and sociopath. He cannot be “negotiated” with. He has no “allies”, no “friends”, and respects no boundaries — legal, constitutional, truthful, factual, rational, personal, or otherwise.
I took this posture here last month, in comments like this, this, and this.
I was told that I was advocating “Jihad” (a characterization to which I plead “Guilty as charged”). I was told by some that I was ignoring the Dreamers (as if Mr. Trump and the GOP were ever going to relent in their xenophobic hostility towards them). I was told I needed to be more “pragmatic”.
Here’s what I think the much-vaunted “deal” accomplished:
1. Took the debt-ceiling off the table so that the GOP could launch another round of attacks on the ACA
2. Made Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi look like simpering fools
3. Gave the GOP time to plan the next stage in their economic war against the 99% (and especially Democrats)
4. Made “increased border security” look more palatable (instead of the sheer bigotry that it actually is)
How’s that pragmatism working out for us now?
Update 10-October-2017
Regarding the above item (4), fellow BMG participant tedf cited a marvelous NYTimes piece with hard actual data about the immigration issue. In particular, the following figure jumped out at me from that piece (sadly, the numbers are not in the image. The top of the chart is 400,000. The top number at the right edge is about 250,000. The bottom number at the right edge is about 150,000):
Blue: Overstayed visa
Gray: Crossed over Mexican Border
The top two ways illegal immigrants arrive in the U.S., 1985-2013
Note that border crossings — the only vector that “increased border security” can affect — decreased from 400,000 per year (ironically, during the George W. Bush administration) to less than 150,000 through 2013. During that same time, the number of immigrants who became illegal because they overstayed their visa has climbed to about 250,000 in 2013. So the number of “overstayers” is about twice the number of “border crossers”. The cited source for the data in the graph says this:
Overstays accounted for about two-thirds (66 percent) of those who arrived (i.e., joined the undocumented population) in 2014.
If the purpose of “increased border security” is to slow the rate at which undocumented immigrants enter the US, then it ignores the largest single source of the “problem” it purports to address.
Another lie revealed
Since the campaign, the GOP has been spreading another lie about immigrants — that they are “rapists” and “killers” (“bad hombres”, a term with special significance, was used at least once). Here are the facts, from the same piece (emphasis mine):
Few nemeses loomed larger in the narrative of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign than the figure of the illegal immigrant who threatened Americans — one of the “rapists” and “killers” from Mexico, as Mr. Trump has put it.
Such people do exist. The Migration Policy Institute has estimated that 820,000 of the 11 million unauthorized have been convicted of a crime. About 300,000, or less than 3 percent of the 11 million undocumented, have committed felonies. (The proportion of felons in the overall population was an estimated 6 percent in 2010, according to a paper presented to the Population Association of America.)
Let’s just see the instant replay of that.
The proportion of felons in the overall population was an estimated 6 percent in 2010. The proportion of felons among the 11 million undocumented immigrants is THREE percent.
The lie: “Illegals” are rapists, killers and felons
The truth: Undocumented immigrants commit felonies at about half the rate of the population as a whole.
I think if we care enough about Dreamers that we can keep them in the country before the March 2018 deadline, than a decent deal is better than no deal or a perfect deal. I think it is fair to ask if our leaders got snowed, but I would also point out that Trump had just brought in Kelly, fired Bannon, and was rewarded for the deal with the credit largely going to his adversaries. And it wrecked what was left with his relationship with McConnell and Ryan.
Trump sees Strange lose bigly in Alabama and realize that Steve was right all along and his base matters more than what the NY or DC media thinks of him. I think we are reaching a critically dangerous point in this presidency where the establishment Republicans begin bailing out one by one on Trump, as Bob Corker already is, and he doubles down on the likes of Moore and Coulter in his public policies.
With a severely fractured Democratic party with no real unifying figure or positive vision to put forth, we could easily see this base come out again and re-elect this moron. He is banking on it, and banking on business tolerating nationalism in the name of a “pro-growth” agenda. They tolerated homophobia under Dubya, what’s to stop them from tolerating xenophobia and Islamaphobia under Trump?
The establishment didn’t save HIllary and it won’t save the Democratic Party or our country. We need to start electing outsiders capable of beating this clown and doing the real work of governing. I am not sure if we have anyone at the ready.
Sadly, it’s all true.
It seems to me that if we seek a “decent” deal between now and next March, then the only people who can make that happen are the “establishment Republicans” in the House and Senate. While I think the chances of that are vanishingly small, I also think front-page media celebrations of Democratic leaders cavorting in the Oval Office with the betrayer of those establishment Republicans doesn’t help.
Suppose we are working on a critical project with a colleague, and we know that that colleague is hurting because their spouse is cheating on them, If we care about the project (never mind the colleague), then we do NOT appear at a high-profile media gala hugging, kissing, and dancing with said spouse. I’m not just asking if our leaders “got snowed”. I’m saying as loudly as I can that had they played with fire, and got burned for it. Even that spouse was really influential, and really well connected, we still should have stayed away.
We reached a critically dangerous point in this presidency the moment Mr. Trump was inaugurated.
I disagree that we have no “positive vision to put forth”, we’ve gone over that ground before — we are the ONLY party who actually stands for traditional American ideas and values. Americans, especially working class Americans, have been helped by Democratic administrations and hurt by Republican.
That pattern continues, in spades, today.
We should not make deals with Mr. Trump. Ever.
We oppose Trump, we oppose racism, we oppose sexism, we oppose xenophobia, and we oppose Islamophobia and homophobia. What do we support? I really think we have to make a two pronged argument that this extremism cannot be tolerated and the only way to alleviate it’s rise is to end perverse income inequality once and for all. I know you agree with me on this, I know most people here agree on this, but I think we need to keep running on what we would do differently on the economy as well against the threat posed by Trump.
I’ll reply, as the jihad accuser. As I indicated in the prior thread, time will tell if there is a deal to be had. Right now it looks like the answer is “no,” but perhaps things will change, and we wouldn’t have been better off had we refused to talk from the outset. Your approach here is reminiscent of the President’s approach on North Korea, minus the risk of nuclear Armageddon.
To your specific points:
1. We need to reject the use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining tool, which we were all decrying as unacceptable just a little while ago. That said, the Democrats negotiated a much shorter extension than the Republicans wanted, so I’m not sure about your point. Are you upset we didn’t default?
2. Again, this point about how Schumer and Pelosi appear is vaguely Trumpian. Concern for this kind of thing is in my view at the root of the psychology of the President’s approach to NK.
3. See point 1.
4. I think DREAMER relief in return for increased border security is sensible and would probably be popular in both parties. I’ve expressed bafflement before that the DREAMers might reject such a deal. They have sympathy on both sides of the aisle because of the circumstances of their immigration, not because majorities favor open borders. And framing the choice as “open borders or bigotry” will hardly appeal to voters anywhere to your
“To your right.
Once again you miss my point.
Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi didn’t “negotiate” anything. What they did was appear in a photo-op. What you call “vaguely Trumpian” some of us call “common decency”.
The point about the debt ceiling “deal” is that it didn’t need to happen AT ALL. Had our leaders declined the invitation, we would in all likelihood have THE SAME deal we got. The difference is that the resolution would have happened a month or two later — sparing us the most recent round of attacks on the ACA.
I get that YOU think pandering to xenophobic hysteria in exchange for not flatly deporting Dreamers in March is “sensible”. I don’t doubt that it might be “popular” in moderate Republican circles and among Democrats who don’t give a shit about actual facts.
I never said “open borders or bigotry”. Our borders are most certainly NOT “open” today. The issues that exist regarding immigration are going to be hurt, not helped, by fortifying our southern border.
There is no need for increased “voter security” — the voterID efforts, driven by the GOP, are entirely about racism. There is similarly no need for increased “border security”. The demand for “increased border security” is entirely about bigotry (nobody is proposing to build a wall to keep out Norwegians). It is a demand that comes from the same ignorant bigots as the voterID nonsense.
Surely history has shown that the only effective response to such bigotry and ignorance is to FLATLY REJECT IT.
Those who actually CARE about immigration policy focus their attention on things like:
1. Making the agencies that issue visas, green cards, and citizenship work better.
2. Holding employers who exploit illegal immigrants criminally responsible for their actions.
3. Making our immigration policies reflect collective good for the nation rather than bigotry and xenophobia.
Those who actually CARE about the Dreamers want to, for example, provide a path for them to become actual CITIZENS. You know, with passports and the ability to vote.
During the Jim Crow era, there were separate drinking fountains, restaurants, and schools. There would have been nothing “pragmatic” or “sensible” about agreeing to end prohibitions on drinking fountains in exchange for even more extreme segregation of restaurants and schools.
Racism was the primary motivation of Jim Crow laws during that era. Bigotry is the primary motivation of “immigration” and “border security” concerns today. Refusing to countenance segregated schools during the Jim Crow era did not mean “opposing education”. Refusing to countenance increased “border security” today does not mean “open borders”.
I suggest that the kind of “pragmatism” you advocate epitomizes the moral, ethical, and political cowardice that makes today’s “Democrats” so utterly unable to actually DO anything.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and voters have shown us they choose Trumpian nihilism over Democrats who cannot or will not actually STAND for something.
They did negotiate something, and the President reneged. As I’m sure they suspected he might. Surely you don’t think that Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi didn’t imagine this possibility. To the question of “how are we worse off,” your answer seems to be, “we had to spend three months debating repeal of the ACA.” Okay. But there was no way that Congress wasn’t going to keep trying to enact the Republican’s main campaign promise, and in any event they failed, and in the third place it’s not as though the Democrats can set the legislative agenda in either house anyway.
On your broader point: first, I assume you know that I favor permanent residency and then citizenship for the DREAMers, i.e., I assume that when you are writing about “Those who actually CARE about the Dreamers,” complete with all-caps, you don’t mean to say that I don’t. “Increased border security” is the kind of broad phrase that could mean Trump’s wall or could mean nothing more than increased funding for the Border Patrol. No doubt, if “increased border security” is the Republicans’ demand, and if we still lived in a rational world, a compromise could be found that would work for both sides. But you say that it is not just wrong but morally, ethically and politically cowardly to have the discussion, and that anyone who talks about “increased border security” is a racist anyway. That’s why I say you’re on a jihad. And you know that there are jihadis on the other side, too, who say that any discussion of the DREAM Act is lawless amnesty and that even to have the discussion with the Democrats is out of bounds.
What is your plan, other than smashing the other side and total victory?
I never got this strategy. This will somehow teach the Republicans that they should do the right thing? The American voters certainly don’t care. They just want to see action, and if we can use the debt ceiling as leverage to get concessions on immigration, saving Obamacare, etc. so be it. The risk of default was always present, and to the extent that it eventually happens we can blame the Republicans.
That is literally the only way we can get our government back, undo the gerrymandering, undo the electoral college, and finally restore our democracy. Once the GOP is responsible to all the voters, and not just their hardcore base, we will see them move back to the middle and the center will be restored. But unilaterally disarming to pretend that the center still exists and is relevant is the height of insanity when facing the real threat to our norms and institutions this President and his party represent.
Re the debt ceiling: it’s not a strategy. It’s just the idea that we should never do anything to call into question the full faith and credit of the United States. That’s “fall of empires” kind of stuff. Saying “the risk of default was always present” and that we can always “blame the Republicans” if there is a default is to be way, way too casual about our greatest national asset. This is not a game.
Of course we need redistricting reform. I’m not sure what you mean about “undo the electoral college.” There is no prospect of actually getting rid of the electoral college. I suppose there is some chance of the National Popular Vote Initiative coming to pass. There is some chance that organized political action at the state level in 2018 can lead to less gerrymandering after the next census. And of course there’s some chance the Supreme Court will reshape redistricting this Term. But anyway, these things aren’t really a plan for accomplishing anything in the next four years. If I were a DREAMer at risk of removal now, I might prefer a grin-and-bear-it compromise bill now to the promise of the eventual Rapture. But I obviously don’t speak for the DREAMers–many of them, surprisingly, seem opposed to compromise.
@tedf:
The other side has explicitly ruled out citizenship for Dreamers all along. They’re quite firm on that. You apparently argue that we should continue negotiating with them anyway. I don’t see what you think we stand to gain.
To use my analogy above, it is if they’ve said “maybe grade schools, but our public high schools will absolute NOT be integrated — colored kids can attend their own separate-but-equal high schools”.
I think that’s a non-starter. I think the right response to that is “then we’ve reached an impasse”, and to explore other avenues.
You’re absolutely correct that I characterize those who demand “increased border security” as bigots. Just like I characterize those who demand voterID laws as racists. In my view, both characterizations are accurate, and I stand by them.
There is ZERO evidence whatever issues we have with illegal immigration today have anything at all to do with border security. It is noteworthy that such demands are about our southern, rather than northern, borders. Nobody minds (or is even aware of) Canadians who illegally enter America.
It is Mexicans — “wetbacks” — that these demands are aimed at. And the demands are racist.
Your commentary here regarding this sort of “pragmatism” regarding border security and Dreamers is strikingly reminiscent of the infamous three fifths compromise. Your plan, in the context of your professed support for Dreamers, reminds me of the claim during the Vietnam era that “we had to destroy [the village] to save it“.
When you describe a “pragmatic” plan that provides a path to citizenship for the Dreamers — now or after March of 2018 — I’m all ears.
Until then, I think we need to be approximately as clear to the GOP about which of our postures is “non-negotiable” as they are with us.
– “Increased border security” is non-negotiatable
– Protecting Dreamers from being deported in March 2018 is non-negotiable
– Providing a citizenship path for Dreamers is non-negotiable.
I agree that “smashing the other side and total victory” is one way to do it. You argue that a better plan exists.
Let’s see it.
Well, I would accomplish what can be accomplished in this Congress, which might be a bill for relief from removal or even permanent residency, in return for negotiated border security measures, and not let the inability to get citizenship passed Congress stand in the way. On border security, I would just note that I read a statement from Rep. Polis, a member of the Progressive Caucus, today, trumpeting Democratic support for “border security as part of comprehensive immigration reform,” so I think we will just have to agree to disagree about whether one can be in favor of increased border security without being a racist. I would try to get a better Congress elected so that more can be done later.
What I would not do is to assert that my political opponents are irredeemable racists. I mean, you’ve accused me of support for something like the three-fifths compromise, and I’m a long-time BMGer in good standing! I can only imagine how your dialogue must go with the nearly 30% of your fellow citizens who are registered Republicans.
I know full well that you don’t support the three-fifths compromise. I understand that you mean well, and that we share the same goal.
I’m suggesting that you (and perhaps Mr. Polis) may not realize how your negotiating posture sounds to some. You wrote upthread that ” I’ve expressed bafflement before that the DREAMers might reject such a deal. ” I’m asking you to consider that perhaps your “bafflement” is another symptom of what, to me, seems to be a blind spot.
I don’t think I used the words “irredeemable racists”. First, a distinction needs to be drawn between a policy and a person. Next, I think that each and every one of us is racist (and sexist!). I think we each have an obligation to find our racism within ourselves, and understand how it affects both what we see (and don’t see) and what we do (and don’t do).
Regarding Mr. Polis, I note from his issues page an important difference between his stance and the GOP (emphasis mine):
First, he IS talking about the Canadian border as well as the Mexican border. That’s one way to gently prod the bigots, because they do not do that. Next, notice how he’s shifted the focus from illegal immigration to “drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and human smuggling”.
I think that “increased border security” at BOTH borders that targets “drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and human smuggling” is more palatable than what I’ve seen from the GOP, and is completely different from building a “wall”.
I think we Democrats must do a MUCH better job of stating, from the get-go, what our own non-negotiables are. I think Barack Obama failed to do that for most of his administration, and we all paid a stiff price for that.
The Republicans who discuss politics with me know what I believe. We are generally able to separate our policy disagreements from our personal conflicts. I know very few people who actually ARE knowingly racist, and more who are knowingly sexist. Such discussions seldom rise to even the “candid and frank exchange of views” that is common among diplomats.
Finally, I think “Jihad” and “Jihadist” are actually different from how you use them. I encourage you to explore those words — and the attitude that I suspect you intend — with your fellow citizens who are Muslims.
I think your last point is a fair one, as I am not using the word “Jihad” in what I understand is its best religious sense of spiritual struggle. I think you know what I meant, and of course though we wish it were otherwise, some Muslims use and intend the word in the other sense, though. Still, maybe “berserker” or “holy warrior” or something would have been better, though it would have lacked the oomph.
Also, I get your point about the northern border, but the reality is that of the 11 million people in the country illegally, nearly 8 million are from Latin America. I don’t have figures for Canadians in the country illegally, but I think there’s a clear difference that justifies different policies even on a purely cost-benefit basis.
@ reality: I appreciate the link to the NYT piece, that’s a great article and I’ve updated the thread-starter with information from it.
I already posted, upthread, what I think less bigoted approach to immigration would look like:
I think these three points address the substance of the issue, as described in your link, than any effort “increase border security”.
I think a reasonable “cost-benefit” analysis will show that the benefits to America of our undocumented immigrant population GREATLY exceed the costs. That is especially true if said analysis reflects wages illegally withheld by employers, the unemployment and social security taxes withheld from these workers with ZERO chance corresponding benefits being paid, and so on.
Here’s another tidbit from your cite:
A quick check of government reports (in this case, RI) shows that the US labor force in December of 2010 was 153.65 M people.
So undocumented immigrants who used counterfeit SSNs accounted for 1.17% of the US labor force in 2010.
How does that fit into a cost-benefit analysis? A tiny portion of the US labor force illegally pays into a system and therefore cannot ever collect benefits from that system. Who pays cost of that? Who benefits from that?
I suggest that we Democrats will get much further in our negotiations if we spend rather more effort focusing on reality, rather less time “negotiating” — especially with those negotiate in bad faith (like Mr. Trump and his ilk).
I don’t disagree with you about the substance of immigration law. In general, I think we should let more people in to the country. I think we should not try to prioritize “skills” in the way the Administration wants to do over family ties or over low-skilled labor. We’re a country of immigrants, and immigrants contribute to our economic and population growth, tax revenues, etc.
Where we may differ: I think that it’s right to try to enforce the laws we have while we have them. So I don’t think it’s a good idea to increase the number of immigrants by decreasing enforcement, for example–just as I don’t think it’s a good idea to “repeal” the ACA by executive neglect. The executive should enforce the laws we have. In addition, border security, in general, is not just about keeping ordinary economic migrants out but also has an important national security rationale.
I agree that the executive should enforce the laws that we have.
I think that Barack Obama tried very hard to work with congress to reform our immigration so that he could do just that. It was only after the GOP, led by their extreme right, flatly refused to go along with any reasonable compromise that Mr. Obama issued his executive orders.
The same is true for nearly all of the other executive orders that are now being reversed. They were each put in place in response to the obstinate, recalcitrant, and explicitly personal refusal of the GOP-dominated congress to deal fairly with ANY action of Mr. Obama.
As I said upthread, I’m ok with a national security rationale for a proposal to increase border security.
Still … if we seek to improve national security, where does “increased border security” rank on the list of threats that require attention?
What I see with “increased border security” specifically, and current GOP immigration attitudes in general, is a set of “solutions” looking for a problem rather than the sincere and genuine desire to address an issue.
“Increased border security” is a proposed solution. I don’t believe for a moment that GOP supporters clamoring to “build that wall” are even REMOTELY concerned about national security. That clamor started long before Mr. Trump was the front-runner, by the way. I turned off the first debate because the dozen or so GOP candidates yelled across the stage at each other about who was going to do more to shut the border.
They weren’t talking about “national security”. They were pandering to their xenophobic base that believes “wetbacks” (i use the term and put quotes around it because that’s the way they expressed their stance) are the source of their economic misery.
Well, you were more right than wrong, and so I concede the point. I suppose I would be a crummy politician.
I don’t think that P&S looked like fools, though– I think they looked like they have basic human decency and would sacrifice some political point-scoring in return for a long shot to help 800,000 people. I’m still not sure what the alternative might be if the erratic winds shifts again– “Sorry, folks, we can’t deal with the Republicans or Trump, so there is nothing whatsoever we can do., other than to feature you in future campaign ads. Tell the folks you leave behind to get out and vote in 2018! Good luck, and click HERE to donate.”
It also seems like all of those terrible consequences you list are essentially the status quo ante. And it still seems like this is the sort of “Everything the Republicans do is REALLY actually totally the Democrats’ fault” bullshit that I don’t subscribe to the New Republic in order to not read.
And, on top of that, the “concession” was the debt ceiling, for goodness’ sake. That needed to happen, period. Do you trust the GOP caucus to not fuck up the economy with that vote? I do not. And, as the Democratic Congressional caucus is not comprised of economic terrorists, I would not expect them to play brinkmanship with such an important matter.
OK, so maybe I still don’t concede the point. 🙂
If nothing else, the same thing could have been done without the high-profile photo-op in the Oval Office.
It was the flaunting of the new-found and very short-lived support from Mr. Trump that I found revolting.
The reality is that he is POTUS, will likely continue to be so for 3+ more years, and that it is extremely obvious that the only way anything at all will happen on anything at all is if he finds a way to strut and preen.
And Dems are not in power in Congress. So what are they to do for 3 years? What if they gain some control in Congress in 2018? Are they to adopt the full Mitch McConnell strategy, in mirror image? If they do, what does that do to the long-term political legitimacy of the republic?
It is a depressing situation, and seems to grow ever more depressing.
I think we Democrats must do our best to be the grown-ups in the room.
I think that NO senator or representative should directly response to Mr. Trump about anything, and certainly no Democrat. Mr. Trump is a vampire whose blood is media attention. I think the first order of business is to deny him that.
– No photo-ops
– When he calls, have staff answer
– No “special” deals, either public or private, with Mr. Trump
In short, a full-blown “slow walk”. EVERY government official who has held even a minor local office knows how it’s done.
I’m not, at all, suggesting a Mitch McConnell mirror image. The hallmark of that despicable strategy is exactly what made it such a threat to the political legitimacy of the republic — it was an iron-clad reflexive opposition to each and every proposal or policy of Mr. Obama, without regard to the consequences.
The GOP never offered an actual alternative to the ACA (because, of course, there was none). They never offered an actual immigration plan (because Mr. Obama agreed to move ahead with the one they HAD put forward, and so they had to oppose it. They were for it before they were against it).
I’m saying that we Democrats should put forward proposals that make sense. When the GOP in the House or Senate puts forward a proposal that makes sense, the Democrats should work to make it happen.
What the Democrats should NOT do is:
– Rub salt in the wounds of the GOP as they are betrayed by Mr. Trump by high-profile even temporary “alliances” with Mr. Trump.
– Negotiate with Mr. Trump directly AT ALL
– Be shy or reluctant to state what our non-negotiables are