Thread: The GOP Risks Being Outmaneuvered on the DREAM Act

The GOP Risks Being Outmaneuvered on the DREAM Act


In exchange for giving permanent legal status to millions, and thus encouraging more illegal immigration, the GOP will get … a vague promise of ‘border security.’By Fred Bauer —

September 11, 2017


A few days into negotiations over a DACA replacement, it seems as though Republicans might be allowing the Left to set the terms for debate over immigration. Echoing Nancy Pelosi, some Republicans have already begun to say that “border security” funding could be an appropriate trade for the DREAM Act.

It’s clear why immigration maximalists would like to trade “border security” for the DREAM Act: It does little to turn off the magnets for illegal immigration (among them jobs and the hope of eventual legal status), and it can easily be gutted. But it’s not clear why conservatives — or, frankly, immigration moderates — should be happy with that trade. And it is certainly far from clear why Republicans should make “border security” their opening bid on a DACA fix.


Not all Republicans have been buffaloed into a DREAM–for–“border security” trade. Senator Tom Cotton (Arkansas) and Representative Lamar Smith (Texas) have called for a combination of E-Verify and the RAISE Act in exchange for the DREAM Act. Other senior Republicans have continued to insist on tying DREAM into a broader immigration package. But many — including in the upper reaches of the party’s congressional wing — seem to mention “border security” only in discussing things to trade for a DACA replacement. Some Republicans are trying to make a DACA replacement even more expansionist.

According to Politico, Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson has considered adding DACA legislation to his proposed state-based guest-worker program. The more Republicans insist solely on “border security” (not interior enforcement and legal-immigration reform), the more they undermine their ability to cut a deal on DACA that advances conservative priorities.


The DREAM Act is a substantial piece of legislation. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that more than 3 million people could be eligible under the Senate’s version of the DREAM Act, and about 1.5 million could end up getting a green card through that legislation. Thus, a population larger than that of Hawaii could end up becoming citizens.

Moreover, under current immigration law, those who became citizens from the DREAM Act could then immediately sponsor their parents for permanent legal residency. This is not a small legalization. In fact, according to the Department of Homeland Security, 1.6 million illegal immigrants who had been in the country since before 1982 obtained permanent-residency status from the 1986 Reagan amnesty (another million or so gained legal status through the 1986 amnesty’s agricultural-worker provisions). Thus, the DREAM Act could give permanent legal status to as many people as the central program of the Reagan amnesty did.


The magnitude of the DREAM Act doesn’t necessarily tell us whether or not it should be passed, but it does indicate how much the center-Right would be giving up by agreeing to it. A few billion dollars for “border security” will not counteract the massive incentive for illegal immigration that the DREAM Act will create. For immigration maximalists, inspiring more illegal immigration might be more a feature than a bug. For those who want a sustainable immigration system that honors the rule of law, a fig-leaf of “border security” is not a sufficient trade for the DREAM Act.



Moreover, passing the DREAM Act without making any substantial reforms to enforcement or legal immigration would be a massive strategic setback for those who want to reform the immigration system so that it encourages integration and opportunity. Unlike the Reagan amnesty, a fig-leaf DACA fix would secure almost no structural changes for enforcement, and the Reagan amnesty failed catastrophically at the goal of putting the American immigration system on a surer legal and civic footing. Giving maximalists so much in exchange for so little, a DACA–“border security” trade would be like sending the center-Right into the third quarter down 21–3 — and immigration moderates don’t exactly have the track record of a Tom Brady in terms of scoring successes. Instead, proponents of an integrationist immigration policy need every opportunity they can get.


Done right, a DACA fix could be training wheels for a bigger effort at immigration reform. Putting in place E-Verify would help codify an enforcement regime, and RAISE-lite (with targeted revisions of certain visa categories) would help reform the immigration system so that it prioritizes the nuclear family and jobs. Many Republicans have called for more guest-worker visas because of a supposed worker shortage, but if a shortage of skilled workers is a real problem, those Republicans would be better off calling for a re-balancing of the current legal immigration system. Trading the DREAM Act for “border security” alone, however, makes it harder to make incremental, evidence-based reforms to our immigration system.


President Trump has his own responsibility in this. If he signals that he’ll be willing to cut a DACA deal no matter what the price, he makes it easy for congressional Democrats to undermine their Republican counterparts in negotiations: “President Trump wants to sign the DREAM Act, so why are you making it difficult for him?” Intra-GOP skirmishing on immigration might delight the media and the scalp-hunters on the right, but it would do little to advance the platform the president ran on.


The president might also remember what happened to another prominent Republican — Marco Rubio — when he tried to cut a deal with Chuck Schumer on immigration. The Gang of Eight bill ended up giving immigration maximalists everything (legal status for millions of illegal immigrants, more guest-worker programs, Potemkin enforcement) while giving moderates almost nothing. Trump catapulted to the GOP nomination in part by railing against corrupt bargains on illegal immigration, so he faces unique political dangers if he signs a DREAM Act without making any substantive improvements to the immigration system. If the president lives up to his commitments in certain areas (such as judicial nominations and immigration), he could have room to negotiate with Democrats on other issues. But failing to deliver on immigration could make him politically vulnerable.


So far in 2017, Republicans have managed to accomplish something Barack Obama never could: make the Affordable Care Act popular. If Republicans pass the DREAM Act without winning any substantial reforms to the enforcement or legal-immigration systems, they will have done more to advance immigration maximalism — and create incentives for future illegal immigration — than Democrats did during their 2009–10 apogee. They will have ended up ratifying, rather than correcting, Barack Obama’s vision for immigration. They will have laid a few bricks for a wall not along the southern border but between the body politic and an immigration system that better honors the principles of civic belonging, national security, and opportunity for all Americans.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...order-security




READ MORE:
To End DACA, Follow the Constitution
Trust Reason, Not Emotion, on the DREAM Act
Stop Smearing DACA Critics as Evil and Racist

DACA is stupid, a fraud, a calculated charade, and a fanciful farce. There is no merit to DACA or DREAM ACT or any other code word or set of letters for amnesty. For any American, let alone Republican, to even consider such a bill, whether in trade for something or not is insanity.

It's a national disgrace that we're even still having these conversations.

These people are illegal aliens, we have no responsibility for them, none, zero, zip. We only have one duty as citizens with regards to them, and that is to deport them on the earliest possible date along with every other illegal alien in the United States.

Too bad trump only pretended he knew daca was bad and unconstitutional. He has left open upcoming numerous occasions for wordage to be sneaked into must pass bills. He should have ended as promised w/o 6mths for others to pass legislation or his revisit which is open ended to some sort of deal for dacas. That is what revisit means in this case.

This nonsense of trading the wall for this and that is so WEAK, an unnecessary discussion and is a con job on the public. He just granted more h2-b visas, what did we get for that? If we re stooping to trade offs, he should have got the border funding with that increase of foreign workers permitted to work in the USA. Albeit, he gets no help at all from ryan, mitch mc and many others holding political jobs - can't say they are earning their keep either according to their constituents wishes.

Mandate e verify for every job, deport all w/o papers and be done with it. Don't make American citizens fight tooth and nail for what is rightfully, lawfully theirs. They have to work for a living and don't have time to hang out protesting.

The more I read, the more I am confused.

Why does the President need congress to enforce the law. If it was a executive order and it runs out, what other action is necessary.

What action, or what trade off, is necessary to enforce our immigration laws and begin warming up (or cooling off) the buses headed for Mexico or the airport?

There are so many things President Trump could do as President. I do know he has opposition - I'm sure I can't even imagine how much or just who is against him, but still I think he could.

For the things he does need congress, why doesn't he launch a campaign style campaign and talk with the American people and impress on them it is possible if they will put the heat on congress.

Many people, myself included, don't think it's possible for it to be fixed due to the government's overwhelming support of it and their total lack of backbones.

Why should there be trade offs. I'm not convinced a wall will do much, but it is something the American people want. How does congress just ignore that?
If there's a trade off, it should be the wall for troops on the border.

We need to put an end to this false belief by Republicans like Tom Tancredo, Mark Krikorian, Tom Cotton, Lamar Smith or anyone else playing into the big lie border security for Amnesty trade off!

Come on folks, those of us here at ALIPAC know there willl never be any pretense at future borders, much less border security, if DACA Dream Act Amnesty passes.

They played the same game in 2010 and it turned out to be a big lie.

W

Originally Posted by nntrixie

The more I read, the more I am confused.

Why does the President need congress to enforce the law. If it was a executive order and it runs out, what other action is necessary.

What action, or what trade off, is necessary to enforce our immigration laws and begin warming up (or cooling off) the buses headed for Mexico or the airport?

There are so many things President Trump could do as President. I do know he has opposition - I'm sure I can't even imagine how much or just who is against him, but still I think he could.

For the things he does need congress, why doesn't he launch a campaign style campaign and talk with the American people and impress on them it is possible if they will put the heat on congress.

Many people, myself included, don't think it's possible for it to be fixed due to the government's overwhelming support of it and their total lack of backbones.

Why should there be trade offs. I'm not convinced a wall will do much, but it is something the American people want. How does congress just ignore that?
If there's a trade off, it should be the wall for troops on the border.

He doesn't need Congress to enforce the law. There is no need for a trade off on that. He can deport in accordance with US immigration law every minute of every day including expired DACAs. What he needs is more ICE agents, more Immigration Judges, more Border Patrol, and Trump thinks and many do that we need a wall, at least in certain high traffic sections of the border. He also wants some more tools like E-Verify, anchor baby bill, and authorization of state and local law enforcement so they can get more engaged in assisting enforcement of US immigration law should they wish to do so, and without fear of federal prosecution, there will be many, many law enforcement agencies get involved. He's not asking for that much, just basic common sense bills that should have been passed years ago. He also wants to reduce legal immigration and change it to a merit-based system, no more importing poverty or people who will steal jobs from American Workers. RAISE ACT seems to do that pretty well.

It's show time for Republicans in Congress. He's got them cornered. There's no way out for them on an amnesty, on not repealing at least the tax mandates on Obamacare and giving him everything he feels he wants and needs to bring our companies home in tax reform and get our growth rate up to over 3%.

The idiots in Congress have no clue what to do, they prance around like they know and want to bump heads with Trump, when it's obvious they're lost, so like I've said before, they all need to sit down, shut up and wait for orders. They've had decades to be the Big Dogs, and what have they done? Run our debt up to $20 trillion and our illegal alien population over 30,000. They're in over their heads, they can't fix the economy, they don't know a damn thing about economics. They'[re too chicken to pass a bill they might offend "Latinos" as if Americans of Latino and Hispanic descent want something different than every American wants and too bought and sold by companies who want immigrant labor over American labor to shut down this insane level of legal immigration, all they've done is grow poverty and increase the debt they pretend to be "hawks" on.

They're in a word... stupid. In fact, they're so stupid, they don't know that they don't know and won't sit down, shut up and listen to a smart President who already knows what to do and then do it.

It's a SWAMP of stupid people in DC. Idiots Supreme.