A Refusal To Compromise "DREAMS"

Ever since Donald Trump, by way of his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, announced an end to the Obama-era policy of deferred prosecution of U.S.-born children to undocumented parents, commonly known as DACA, there has been a political scramble to address the problem Trump effectively created by taking this step, one that had no positive practical effect except to throw a hefty slice of red meet to his immigrant-hating base.

In the case of congressional Republicans who have at least an inkling that Trump's decision may create serious political problems for some of their colleagues in the short one, ones with Hispanic bases, and all of them in the long run, as the population of the country as a whole shifts to a point at which whites are a minority, they understand that they need to engage on the issue.  In the case of Democrats, of course, for both political and humanitarian reasons, they want a legislative solution that will protect not only all of the children in question, but also their spouses, parents, and minor siblings, by providing them with  the ability to obtain permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship.  This is why Democrats have, for several years, consistently sponsored the DREAM Act, which would do all of these things.

Unfortunately, the Republicans want to take a Christmas-tree approach to negotiating on this issue, in much the same way as they did with their recent, so-called "tax reform" bill.  They only want to grant protections for those who formally enrolled in the DACA program, about 800,000, and not all of the 3-million plus who are or were eligible to participate in it. They are unwilling to do anything to protect the family members of DREAMers.  They want to drastically curtail the ability of family members, and other residents of foreign countries, to obtain permanent residency into the United States, paving the path for a so-called "merit-based" system ("merit," of course, should be effectively translated as "money").  Above all, they want a series of draconian enforcement measures put into place--above and beyond all, Trump's proposed wall along the southern border, which is neither physically practical nor otherwise cost-effect in promoting security.

Democrats, unfortunately sound like they're prepared to cave on some or perhaps all of this.  They have a disturbing habit of going into negotiations looking needy, instead of tough.  And there's no reason to do, especially since DREAMers are strongly in favor of an all-or-nothing approach to this issue.  As are other members of the Democratic coalition.

So, Chuck and Nancy, here's my pitch.  Grow a pair of spines.  Stand up for the people who vote for you and give you money.  Don't take a deal that's less than your supporters are asking for.  And, if you have to, take the "Christmas tree" approach yourself.  Take the 2013 comprehensive immigration bill that House Republicans didn't get a chance to vote on, tweak it a bit, and say "It's THIS or nothing."

And then see what matters more to Republicans:  their beloved Trump, or the potential future voters for their party.