Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Immigration: A Deal May Not Be Possible
Yesterday, I wrote a post now on the Main Feed reporting on the results of the recent Harvard Harris poll that I thought indicated there was an existing national consensus around key elements needed for a Congressional deal on immigration; essentially trading off DACA citizenship in exchange for ending chain migration, the diversity visa lottery, and building some type of barrier with Mexico. I realize there are significant issues not addressed like e-verify and what to do with the other 10 million illegals, but I think the elements identified in the poll are a good starting place from my perspective. And if you don’t think some type of compromise will be needed for immigration legislation you are going to have to find 60 senators willing to vote for legislation with all the “good” stuff and to deport the DACA folks, the latter of which is very unpopular with the public, including the majority of GOP voters.
That said, my confidence that we can rely on a deal like that outlined above has been shaken by Barack Obama’s wholesale assault on the American system of governance. Let me explain:
In a compromise both parties get certain things they want and have to give on other things. To satisfy both parties with a compromise like this over the long term, two elements have to be in place; (1) legislative language that precisely captures those issues most important to both parties, and (2) implementation of that legislation in good faith by the Executive Branch with a good faith approach by the Judicial Branch.
The problem is that the Obama Administration acted in bad faith during both its terms, to the applause of its base, its members in Congress, and the media. The President blazed a new path in Executive Branch faithlessness regarding the rule of law, and there is no doubt in my mind that even if a compromise embodying things I thought important regarding immigration, that whenever Democrats regain control of Congress and elect a President, the Executive Branch, with the assistance of Progressive judges will do whatever is necessary to undermine the parts of the compromise they don’t like. And they will be applauded for it by the media and many of the other institutions in this country. If that happens those who supported the compromise will feel like chumps with a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
This first became evident during the implementation of Obamacare, legislation that was a compromise between Democrats. In several instances, the Obama Administration unilaterally, and illegally, administratively changed dates and other legal requirements of the ACA, in direct contravention of the statutory language. One of the reasons for some of these changes was to avoid provisions of the law from becoming effective prior to the 2012 election when it became politically inconvenient.
However, it took immigration to raise Obama’s technique to high art with his unlateral DACA order and other actions in contravention of law. You may argue that eventually a Court ruled the move illegal but even with that the Democrats now have created an issue which didn’t exist before and in which public opinion is massively on their side. Besides, would you want to bet the future on finding a similar Court next time around?
Obama’s approach permeated the entire federal government. Just yesterday at NRO, David French wrote of the Trump Administration’s attempt to unravel and repeal lawless regulations and interpretations created by the Department of Health and Human Services, an attempt just like efforts to reverse DACA subject to gross factual distortion by the press.
The problem with the devastation created by Barack Obama and his cheerleaders is it may have made legislative compromise on complicated and divisive issues difficult, if not impossible, because anti-progressives can not trust the laws to be faithfully executed by a progressive administration.
Published in General
I would never give citizenship to the DACA kids, absent something extraordinary like honorable military service. We need to deny the Dems any electoral benefits from this immigration mess.
People should be reminded that the ones to be angry with are those kids’ irresponsible parents who put them in this situation, and not a sovereign nation acting in the interest of its own citizens. I’m sick to death of the Democrats wailing about “the children” when they do not care about children at all, or women or the poor or immigrants either. It’s about changing the demographics of the country irreparably and nothing more.
Well done, again, Mark!
I think you outline the problem well. The GOP needs to fight this Congressional election on Trump’s side so far as immigration is concerned. Not what Sen. McConnell or especially Speaker Ryan want, but they might have to do it, because:
It’s important for the election to break the Democrats on immigration & loudly proclaim the national consensus, in, through, & despite the media (which is insanely trying to paint anything but the Schumer position as hardline). That’s what would protect legislation from the evils of administration & judges…
A thought experiment …
A couple hosts an annual Holiday open house at their home. Food and drink and music. No invitation necessary, come one, come all. All they ask is that you present yourself at the front door, shake hands with your hosts and introduce yourself. Their soirée is so popular that there is usually a line down the sidewalk of people waiting to get in. So, how should the hosts feel about a group of people who, instead of waiting in line with the others, hop over the hosts’ fence, break into the back door, and help themselves to the contents of the hosts’ refrigerator?
It seems to me that the hosts are well within their rights to demand that the interlopers leave, and out of respect to the guests who followed the rules, should exercise that right and toss the interlopers out on their ears. Publicly and Immediately.
What say you?
“…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
If we’ve gotten to point where an Executive of the other party can no longer be trusted to follow that mandate, or be held accountable for it, then the Republic is in very bad shape. The next stage is revolution/civil war, since losses in an election are no longer limited by constitutional bounds.
This is essentially the problem. If there’s no such thing as compromise anymore because one side plays outside the rules, then there’s no such thing as compromise anymore.
Don’t worry about that so much. Get popular opinion on your side-
Fortunately, popular opinion is already largely on our side. But we need to deal on DACA in order to capitalize on popular support for E-verify, greater border security, and a more judicious, rational immigration policy. The Trump team should push the Dems hard, but not too hard (we don’t need to get all of that in one gulp).
At the end of the day, Americans must see the Dems as the unreasonable party “if” (most likely “when”) this thing blows up.
There may be electoral impacts even w/o citizenship. There’s a census coming up in 2020, and the census counts total population regardless of eligibility to vote. Thus states with large populations of immigrants such as California, New York, Florida, and Texas will get more representatives in Congress and more votes in the Electoral College.
Maybe non-citizens should count as 3/5 of a citizen for apportionment purposes.
Also, in California, new and renewed drivers licenses and IDs will automatically be accompanied by voter registration for citizens and non-citizens alike. This is despite the fact that Los Angeles County has 1.44 times as many registered voters as it does voting age U.S. citizens.
California is already a one party state with a Democrat supermajority in the state senate.
I’ve already linked this so forgive me if you’ve seen it, but it’s important.
The Democrats look at the demographic changes which underpinned their success in California and see paradigm by which they will achieve a national future of endless power for their party. Without a successful and uncompromising Republican opposition to their immigration plans, the future of the USA is California or bust… up.
It’s also impossible to compromise when the thing each side wants the most is for the other to not get what it wants.
John intends to kill Jim, Jim wants to live. Propose the compromise.
Not all conflicts are that existential, but some are. For Jim to mistake the situation could be fatal. For John, maybe not so much. Obviously, mistaking a non-existential dispute for an existential one is also dangerous.
Spoken “presidential elections.”
But what I mean is that sometimes the sides become less concerned with accomplishing their political aims than with frustrating the aims of their opponents. The desirable outcomes get lost. We should perhaps take a more capitalist approach and look for the mutually beneficial agreements. Those do exist. In the case of immigration we have DACA to bargain with. Let’s not be in the 20% that oppose legal status for the dreamers, but I’m fine with holding their legal status hostage for the ransom of some good reforms.
That sounds plausible. Interesting question from talk radio today: the .gov is going after unpaid student loans granted to citizens, and providing illegals with a free education. And “green card” is legal status, though I think most of the DACA people old enough to apply for one haven’t.
Daniel Greenfield has it right:
And that, my friend, is an existential dispute. Many people voting for Trump did so solely because they thought so too.
I generally agree, but we need to be careful with the terminology. When the Left speaks of “dreamers” they include not only those people registered under DACA, but all people brought here illegally as minors.
I like your analogy.
The one I tend to use is a hospital emergency room. Any hospital that didn’t practice triage would be in big trouble very quickly. In other words, just as the hospital emergency room has to control and manage who it treats, who is a priority and who isn’t, so a country must control and manage its borders.
In general, I believe a country should prioritize immigrants that will be useful to the country. But there is also room for accepting some immigrants on humanitarian grounds. I am thinking of real refugees, such as Ugandan Indians fleeing Idi Amin or Christians fleeing the Middle East.
If a country wishes to retain a small proportion of its immigration places for those who are true refugees , then it is essential to control the borders. In much of Europe, the refugee centres are overflowing, mostly with people who are migrants, not real refugees. As a result, there is no room any more for taking in people who are in desperate need of safety.
Of course you are right. That is why we must cut budgets to the bone and insist that laws and the regulations to implement them must be passed by Congress. They will filibuster and we must let them but have to be fighting over the right issues and have our talking points and facts simple and clear. The issue is e verify and how to treat people who are here illegally crafted in ways most people support. Deport felons, people who live on the public welfare, and put in line those who are here, have jobs or are successfully enrolled in school. Those in schools get F visas, those employed get temporary work permits, etc. a category that has to be created again, i.e. jobs in short supply. Those who do not volunteer to put themselves in line remain illegal and that is why we need e verify. We have to keep it simple and stick to the talking points.
I think I said in your previous post that I doubted the Dems would accept it. We just have to beat them at the polls then. What you listed yesterday , plus a limit well below the million per year now to the annual legal immigration, is exactly what I want.
Agreed. Plus the Mary and Joseph and Jesus were refugees and immigrants analogy is a crock. First off they were migrating through the Roman Empire, so it was not across borders. Second, it was one family. I can accept a family or two if they have a dire need to immigrate, but millions annually, both legally and illegally is a completely different dynamic.
I have a question vis a vis the underlying issue in the OP: I remember the days when it was the Republican president accused of not faithfully executing the laws passed by congress. That’s what Iran-Contra was about (if you subtract the gift of a Bible and whatnot) right? And GWB’s “signing statements” were intended (as I understood it, at least) to essentially nullify he legislation being signed.
Do I have this wrong?
If not…or even if this was a problem of getting my info through a leftist filter—isn’t it possible that the “compromise” or dialogue worth seeking is about ensuring the integrity of the process? That the whole point of the FF’s vision was to counteract the very natural tendency of people to believe that their own ends justify bad means?
The fear of Trump provides (-ed?) an opportunity for shoring up those processes. Suddenly, freedom of speech and constraints on executive power, even using the old persuade-and-vote rather than SCOTUS to achieve Social Justice were being bandied about as solutions to the Trump Crisis. This is what the NeverTrumpers in congress and in the press should be working hard for.
I consider myself an immigration hawk but I would be able to back a deal where the DACA recipients get permanent residency under the conditions you bring forth. I would only additionally require that all DACA folks get zero chance for citizenship…ever. Also, they all must be heavily vetted. I’ve read where as many as more than half the 800K number we see printed everywhere are fraudulent and/or on public assistance. All such people should be booted.
400K mostly good, hard working folks are a nice trade for improved security.
I also read a study that reveals that 50% of 3rd generation Latino’s in the US vote Republican. These people’s children would be very open to conservative values.
It is a simple equation. You cannot make a deal with someone who lacks integrity. The left, by its belief in the ends justifiying the means, can never be trusted to adhere to any deal which has been hammered out. Any solution to this problem needs to be ironclad and not subject to the perfidity of a progressive president.
I think you right in that issue has surfaced since the start of the nation. I also think there are some differences now.
Take your two examples. When Iran Contra surfaced it was the Reagan administration itself that announced the improper acts and you had open Congressional hearings in which GOP senators were aggressively questioning participants.
With the GWB signing statements he would say why he didn’t agree with the legislation but I don’t remember that he would refuse to enforce it or actually change its meaning for purposes of implementation. For instance I think he erred in signing McCain Feingold since he said it was unconstitutional but it was the Bush FEC enforcement of the law that triggered the Citizens United case.
With Obama you had not just failure to enforce but ignoring and changing statutory deadlines and administratively changing the meaning of statutory language.