I would estimate that Dreamers pay taxes well in excess of both the President and his family, and an equal number of his cracker supporters. more than enough to build his wall. He could escrow their tax payments for a MAGA Wall fund and claim Mexico built the wall, and have enough left over for a number of taxpayer financed golf outings at his resorts.
4
Trump has offered 1.8M illegals citizenship. No other Republican could do that because they'd be killed for granting amnesty.
This is the one and only chance for Dems to take the deal. All other pillars are fairly reasonable.
12
I came to America in 1949 as a high school student from Hong Kong and I had no problem to complete my education and fulfilled my American dream. America is a great country and land of opportunities. A country of immigrant and a melting pot. But everyone should come in legally and no illegal dreamers allowed. Black, white and any other ethnic groups should come in legally.
21
Based on the number of comments here persuasively making the case that the US has a right to control its borders, I'm expecting that moderators will soon move to close this article to further comments.
What's lost in this whole discussion is that the left (ie, those who were pro-labor) were traditionally against open borders because of the manner in which flooding the market with new laborers would drive down wages. Opposition to open borders isn't about racism, as much as Dick Durbin and the New York Times editorial board would like to make it out to be in the service of trying to shame anyone who disagrees with them.
26
Mr. President, please assign your priorities properly. American citizens in Puerto Rico are still awaiting succor after that devastating hurricane. Don't you think that $25 million for relief and basic living necessities would be better spent on Americans in need than a border wall that won't deter illegal immigrants from coming to America? Put the thjnking cap on, sir. This is what you were elected to do, for the good of the country.
You're throwing good money away on people who aren't even here. As an experienced businessman, you ought to know better.
8
What a strange article.
The sole complaint of the administration about the Common Sense proposal was the weird last minute (handwritten) effort to ban all enforcement against anyone who arrives in the US by this summer. The Common Sense proposal came within 6 votes of passing, the closest of any proposal. All that needs to be done is to backdate the "reduced priority for enforcment" so that anyone who has been here 2 years or less remains a priority for enforcement.
Our sympathy is with those who have built lives here, despite arriving illegally. Those who arrived illegally and have not yet sunk down roots don't have the same claim.
Let's fix the enforcement date and then give a gift of emotional security to millions of people who really have sunk roots here. The Times has written about this mostly in a way designed to paint Republicans as extremists. A compromise is within reach. Let's get there.
2
This is all about deal making and the Demos should have played in this vein from the beginning. As much as I would like to see a citizenship path for the DACA individuals, it would be wrong to allow the types of fundamental restrictions on family reunification migration (aka chain migration).
Family-based immigration has been fundamental to the building of successful immigrant communities since its adoption to help Italian and Irish families.
Give Trump his wall and hold the line on family reunification immigration. The visa lottery system is a throw away that can be restructured to please both sides. And finally, belly up on the enforcement issues. The law needs to be enforced.
It's time for Congress to ignore Trump & his divisive 4 pillars. Congress has everything it needs to pass legislation to legalize the DREAMERS and their immediate families. Congress can pass bipartisan legislation then override a presidential veto should one occur. The fate of the DREAMERS need not be tied to any other issue. That's just gridlock!! All the other issues can be addressed separately one at a time. Those that have strong bipartisan support can go forward. Those that don't can work harder to make their case to the American people. Come on Congress! You're there to represent US not undermine each other and our country. So get to work and represent!
1
The Congress has exclusive power and authority to enact immigration laws,
and to enact changes in existing laws.
That includes the power and authority not to act.
It has no duty to make any changes at all.
If American citizens are not happy with the way Congress acts or does not act,
they have the power to elect new Senators and Representatives at the next election.
American needs much stronger immigration control, now,
including much stronger border security,
and much stronger interior enforcement.
That should be the first priority.
The claim is made that Dreamers deserve some kind of special dispensation,
because supposedly they were brought here through no fault of their own.
Then whose fault was it?
Their parents fault, of course.
Any special dispensation for the Dreamers ought to come only after much stronger immigration control is firmly established,
and ought never lead to citizenship or any other status
which would allow them to sponsor or bring in their parents,
the very persons who were at fault for their supposed plight.
12
Why does he want the wall? I would think it would remind Americans why they do not have a many customers as they used to, because Trump deported those customers to other nations and they can't spend money here if they live in a different country. Fear sells and some people are afraid that evil will come from another place and get them. But the terrorists that actually kill people every week are almost all home grown American citizens, often NRA members. His art of the deal is like he wants to run you out of town and threatens to burn your house down. But to get the deal, he offers to first burn down the garage first, so you think you got a better deal.
4
It's too late for Dreamers. The issue has become radioactive like gun control and abortion. Something like this could have possibly been resolved some years ago, quietly, without a lot of notice. Now that it has become a political football, I'm afraid it's hopeless. There will be no resolution in our lifetime.
4
“Truthiness”
The Obama Administration gave the impression that DACA would be reserved for people who had completed high school (and may have even gone on to further education). The reality is that it is open to anyone who enrolls in an alternative elementary school for adults or in a course that teaches English as a Second Language, if the latter has a good chance of leading to a job or to admittance to a job training program.
Most undocumented migrants have no more than an elementary school education, and some have never been to school, at all. This would not stop them from being granted DACA status, if they would now just enroll in an alternative elementary school or in an ESL class.
This is not widely known so virtually everyone who applied for DACA had graduated from high school or had a GED.
The social service agencies that have been set up to help the undocumented are well aware of DACA’s loose criteria. If President Trump were to reopen DACA to all Dreamers who would be eligible under its current laughable requirements, then the social service agencies would likely help undereducated migrants enroll in either an alternative elementary school for adults or in an ESL program, and then apply for DACA.
Immigrants with such little education would be heavily dependent on government services and subsidies for their entire lives.
15
The Trump Administration and the Republican Parties Agenda on DACA along with immigration reform is similar to the pre-civil war policies of the Confederate States. The illegal immigrant population will be paid low wages without the benefits of Social Security and provide cheap labor and servitude for the top 1% of the population who control most of the wealth. Without the right to vote or a path to citizenship these immigrants and their children will be second class citizens.
The roadblock on the path to citizenship or legal status for DACA recipients is the Senate’s parliamentary rule that 60 votes are required to stop a filibuster and close debate. Two of the measures introduced had enough votes to pass but not the 60 votes required to end debate. Senators who found themselves in the minority killed the bills by refusing to close debate.
The Constitutions provides that only a simple majority (51 votes) is needed to pass all measures except treaty ratifications, constitutional amendments and impeachments. The Senate could have—and should have—waived the 60-vote rule and advanced either the McCain-Coons measure, which got 52 votes, or the centrist measure, which got 54 votes. The Constitutions provides that only a simple majority (51 votes) is needed to pass all measures except treaty ratifications, constitutional amendments and impeachments.
Political party hacks created the 60-vote rule to prevent the majority party from outvoting the minority. It purpose was to promote rule by political party, even though the Constitution assigns political parties no role in government. The delegates who signed the Constitution clearly intended senators to be permitted to vote on legislation. The Constitution empowers the Senate to establish parliamentary rules, but not rules that contradict the Constitution. The Supreme Court should rule the 60-vote rule unconstitutional.
2
The Wall is relatively unimportant. Trump included references to the Wall in his stump speeches because quite frankly he was trying to appeal to uneducated people.
But the fact that they are uneducated doesn't make them pieces of worthless trash. They could see that Obamacare had holes and when they went to the ER they stood in lines behind the Spanish-speaking.
They could see that illegal workers were willing to work for less in semiskilled fields, undercutting their wages. (Harvard economist George Borjas describes this effect in some of his works.)
So they voted for the man who promised an end to illegal immigration.
And although the Joe Six-packs couldn't articulate what troubled them, their message was quite simply this.
Since the 1986 Immigration Reform Act which was supposed to end illegal immigration, US population has increased by 85 million, an increase of about 35.4 percent.
States have responded by shifting funds from universities to K12. Over a period of 30 years, this means fewer have been trained and more unskilled workers have entered the workforce. This drives up the cost of medical care and drives down wages for unskilled workers. That is Econ 101.
So we need to stop illegal immigration. But before we do that, we need a full discussion of overpopulation.
That's where the NY Times has shirked its responsibility. Instead of providing news about how overpopulation contributes to starvation in South Sudan, we have endless stories about Weinstein.
28
Given the scope and complexity, your correspondent clearly and concisely summarized ten thousand pages of legislation and the advocacy around it in a few hundred words. Great journalism. Thanks and keep it coming.
3
The deal is there waiting for both Democrats a Republicans to agree. As in any transaction if they find it too "expensive" then they can walk away.
2
ALL of these issues were taken care of ( and more ) in a bill that passed with true bipartisanship ( not just one or two votes from Democrats or republicans ) through the Senate in 2013.
It did not even get a vote ( where it would have passed easily ) in the republican controlled house. ( Remember Boehnor being confronted by those 2 girls eating breakfast as to why he was doing what he was doing ? )
Now we are here, with republicans ( and in particular the President ) holding these families\children's lives in the balance to use taxpayer money for enhanced security and a wall ( that Mexico was supposed to pay for ).
Never mind that the border agency is out of control and doing ( illegal ? ) search and searches far, far away from said border. Never mind that families are being broken up and demonized with great force and numbers in the meantime.
To some it is but a game (political or otherwise ) but to many it is life or possible death.
Hold on until November is all I can say.
7
It seems the fox crowd has been mobilized to comment on this article early. This is one of the few comments that expresses views based on the facts. Thank you.
1
" .. Hold on until November is all I can say."
That's right, that's when the Democrats and Pelosi, having proven they prefer non-citizens to citizens, become a minor party.
Stay your course, Democrats. We can't wait, until the election.
5
Alas, the two sides of the debate do not even agree on the terms.
Leftists consider immigration – and more or less open borders – a moral imperative. They actually agree with DT about the conditions in foreign countries, if not the adjective, and, therefore, advocate permitting lots of people to come, and oppose sending anyone home. The oppose the very notion of a nation state with one people sharing common values. So, when they look at immigration, they simply don’t care if it costs a fortune, undermines American wages, etc. They support immigration for its own sake.
Conservatives approach immigration as does every other country in the world: would a particular immigrant be a benefit to the people already here? If so, welcome. If not, stay where you are. In short, conservatives assess immigration based upon whether admitting any particular immigrant benefits the country.
If immigration is seen a a human right, any restriction is unacceptable. If people in problematic countries are suffering, they must be permitted entry. If, on the other hand, the interests of those already here are paramount, massive immigration is an economic catastrophe.
And until the law changes, it MUST be enforced as written. That means illegals – including the incidental beneficiaries of their parents’ crime – MUST be sent home. Don’t like that? Fine. That’s what the word “compromise” was coined for.
47
Well, let's make this "transactional." Could we find a way to import those poor, tired, and huddled masses (as per Emma Lazarus), and export all of the native-born deplorables wearing MAGA hats and proclaiming what they take to be their "right" to amass a personal stockpile of state-or-the-art military weapons, the purpose of which (in their minds) is to overthrow the Federal Government and re-establish the Confederacy? We could send all the science-deniers to Antarctica, where they will probably be able to grow wheat and raise cattle in a few years.
1
If Trump demands that "the wall" is included with the Dreamers, then we should vote no.
No one wants children to suffer, but they were brought to this country illegally by their parents and they are not, US citizens. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being wasted on negotiating for Dreamers to stay in the US, when those dollars could go to starving children - who are US citizens and who need our help.
Trump needs to dial up the President of Mexico for payment. Wasn't that Trumps big campaign promise? "Mexico will pay for the wall". We heard it a thousand times. Well, then - let Trump figure out how to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
The wall is Trump's project. Maybe Russia can float him a loan to pay for it. I'm sure Putin would be delighted to assist Trump.
6
You wrote, "The wall is Trump's project. Maybe Russia can float him a loan to pay for it. I'm sure Putin would be delighted to assist Trump."
Sounds like a perfect money-laundering scheme, involving a sum which would dwarf the construction costs of any Trump project thus far -- including Trump SoHo (cf Bayrock Group, Felix Sater, et al).
Tax foreign remittances to pay for the wall. That makes the most sense.
5
Firstly we want less disingenuous reporting from the NYT. "Chain migration" is a pejorative term ---the official term is "family reunification" and has been used for years. Further, any reference to eVerify and the like must show that all sort of enforcements proposed are focused only on the worker, not the corporation or its officers. That inequity needs to be reported whenever enforcement is talked about. Lastly, let's remember that Mr. Trump rescinded DACA and Mr. Trump if he wants can re-instate it and advocate for it in all judicial proceedings --of course Trump can revive DACA. Just look at how the ban has been implemented in spite of court reversals. To talk about Congress saving DACA is in itself deceitful --the Senate is just grappling with the actions of the executive.
Immigration is too important to permit anything less than clear-eyed reporting at all times, without falling for the language and copouts used ideologues.
1
"Chain migration" is a neutral term that has been used by demographers since the 1960's. "Chain migration," as a term, has been consistently used by Democrats, including African-American, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, when she led President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform. Even Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, just a few years ago, was using the term "chain migration." And it has been generally agreed upon since at least the Jordan Commission of the mid-1990's that chain migration needs reforming and tightening. Maybe not all parents but certainly adult siblings, in-laws, etc.
It only suddenly became a "bad word" upon Trump's election. Most of us would have preferred rational, compassionate and moral leaders to have done the right thing on immigration 20 years ago (i.e., Clinton should have and could have signed the legislation based on the Jordan Commission in 1996). Instead, he betrayed the Barbara Jordan Democrats and unfortunately here we are. Biggest irony of the 2016 election is Bill Clinton's own action in the summer and fall of 1996 surrounding immigration led directly to his wife losing her campaign 20 years later.
10
"Family Migration" sounds better doesn't it? But that's not a solution and it should not be permitted.
2
The academic term is chain migration. Family reunification is the politically correct term instituted to blind the public to reality. It's sort of like calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants". They are not undocumented. Their problem is that their documents prove they are not legally present in the US.
It's similar to calling the Obamacare law the Affordable Care Act or naming the Clean Power Plan. Obamacare increased medical costs and therefore medical insurance costs. The CPP would have done nothing to improve the environment or reduce CO2, as it violated the Clean Air Act.
Putting a nice name on something does not change reality.
After the Reagan era immigration reforms, eVerify was put in place so that employers would have a means of verifying the I-9s completed by new hires, since they were not document experts. It didn't work well, and the Holder/Obama Justice Department sued employers who declined to hire workers who had been erroneously identified by eVerify as ineligible to work. This made it impossible to sue employers for hiring illegal aliens as long as the employees had completed I-9s and had provided documentation, no matter how fraudulent the documentation is.
Obama, in addition to his other support of illegal aliens, found yet another way to subvert the execution of law.
5
Why link unrelated things together and complicate an issue. Forget the blame game. Lets have a straight up vote for DACA. Lets have a straight up vote for gun control. A straight up vote for the Wall Mexico is suppose to pay for. Why can't this be accomplished? Is it because no one wants to stand and be accounted for. Maybe if we had a leader and not just a muck raker.
11
I agree with you there. No to 'comprehensive'. Yes to ''piecemeal'.
Don't we ever learn from history?
The Berlin wall didn't work to keep people in, and the Mexican border wall will not work to keep people out.
5
Very few people made it over the Berlin wall before it was torn down.
4
Actually the Berlin Wall was pretty effective. Those who tried to get over it died.
4
Who is going to pay for the Wall?
3
The same people who paid for the Dreamers education and health care -- the American taxpayer.
Any other questions?
7
Paying for the wall? Our working class is paying for the open borders, and paying dearly every time they get undercut.
7
As innocent of wrong doing as the dreamers are, I don't want the US to waste money on a foolish, symbolic wall. If the choice is frittering away millions for a wall vs. keeping dreamers here, the dreamers lose in my view. This administration is gutting the money the US has for children, the elderly and retired. We don't need to waste any more money especially to allow Trump to have a "win" to build a wall he claimed would not be paid for by taxpayers because Mexico would pay for it. Once Mexico antes up the money, well maybe the build the wall. LOL
11
This is all about Trump and his base, nothing more. He has to show them he will get what they want. It is not about logic, compromise or what's good for the country.
12
The country wants immigration reform. We realize the Dems see the Dreamers as potential voters.
6
The President's plan was very generous, and had the democrats jumped on board, the House would have folded (absent the Freedom coalition). Instead, the democrats have run to their corner and would rather sacrifice the dreamers than end the visa lottery and reduce overall immigration.
42
Thank God for the House of Representatives.
Trump's supporters wanted an end to illegal immigration. He has not followed through. His proposal to provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers is a step backwards. We need instead a three-year renewable delay on their deportation.
But even more we need a full debate on the issue which drives illegal immigration, which is population growth.
Since 1986, when the last Immigration Bill was signed, to the present the US population grew by 85 million, an increase of over 35%.
Such population growth is unsustainable in the long run, and is increasing the size of ghettos in US cities.
What happens to accommodate the influx of immigrants? Look at the California State Budget to see. More immigrants mean more spending on K12 education, less on universities. This means that a larger percentage of the young are trained as unskilled or semiskilled worker, fewer are able to afford medical school or engineering school.
Fewer doctors per capita means higher medical costs. The impact on health costs is even higher because illegal immigrants get their medical care in the ER, which is off-budget, the costs being passed on in higher insurance premiums.
This is why after 8 years of Democratic advantage while Obama was president, a path to universal health care wasn't "affordable."
Many poor Americans die earlier deaths: without insurance they don't get cancer screenings.
Resources are limited. That's why illegal immigration must stop.
45
Jake Wagner, I am with you but it is a little more complex.
Democrats do usually support funding for international and domestic family planning, more than Republicans typically. They could do so more vigorously but that is factor in population growth. Unfortunately, they rejected an offer from Trump that would have provided increased federal funding to Planned Parenthood for both family planning and women's medical screening, on condition that Planned Parenthood spin off the abortion clinics into separate entity. While personally pro-choice, seems like reasonable offer from Republican. Planned Parenthood, with Dem support, said no way. So this is why one can say typically the Dems support increased funding for family planning, but not always and could certainly do so more vigorously.
At the same time, as you point out, the Democrats position seems to be every one of the current 7.5 billion people not already in the US are welcome to come here and deserve citizenship for themselves and any one remotely related to them so long as said person can smuggle themselves in.
So they seem to want turbo-charged population growth to North America and US, with zero regard for US quality of life; zero regard for declining wildlife habitat; negative impact of illegal alien public education mandates on per pupil spending for US citizen children and legal immigrant children; urban sprawl; declining water resources in California and the West, etc. Dems need to go back to center.
4
My observation is that it is the Democrats open boarders agenda that is the obstacle to both immigration reform and a solution to the DREAMERS situation. It seems that the Democrat party leaders want the issue not the solution.
47
Republicans, many big contributors to GOP candidates, rely on cheap undocumented immigrant labor to build homes, pick crops, process meat, work construction. GOP officials from Texas, Arizona, the Deep South, are those most likely to favor some immigration reform because they are trying to help out their constituency in those states. So this GOP opposition is a sham and a ploy to get votes. And the Democrats don't want open borders. That is colossal nonsense.
6
Nobody in either party, nobody in either the House or the Senate, wants to see the end of cheap illegal labor, because the donors who own them all want to keep wages low low low.
This is more kabuki theatre.
31
By the same token, do we punish the parents? The people who have committed the crimes.
12
The Dreamers stand for everything America stands for.
"Trump's Wall", like the Berlin Wall, stands against everything America stands for.
NO TRADE. Do the right thing.
7
The kicker on the main-page to open this article is the seventh down in the left column. What I am curious about is the graphic right below it, which I presume is intended, in some inscrutable way, as pertaining to this article. So here is my question about the graphic. Assuming that the root of the chord shown in the graphic is on the fifth string (the second string from the bottom), then why are there both a perfect fifth and a sharp fifth in the chord? I would opt for one or the other, but not both.
2
The republicans' habit of using children as hostage to their absurd agenda is despicable. I'm ashamed to be an American.
6
The Republican's calling the Estate Tax the "Death tax" is no different than the NY Times/Democrats calling children of illegal immigrants "Dreamers." Each party uses made up terms to push their agenda. Look in the mirror kids. Look in the mirror. You are not so different from your opposition.
34
The fate of the Dreamers and immigrants in general and immigration is in the hands of the GOP, and from the article, the House GOP is never going to allow citizenship, and intends to be very restrictive. In short, nothing will ever happen, except of course, the denial of rights of the Dreamers. Everything in the House Plan and in Trump's plan is against the immigrants. Spend a fortune on a useless border wall, end family based migration, more aggressive enforcement, etc. Take away so-called sanctuary cities, making visa overstays a federal misdemeanor, etc, etc.
2
"the denial of rights of the Dreamers"
Please tell us, precisely, what "rights" the Dreamers, or other illegal aliens have, have?
54
Maybe it is against illegal immigration, but that is a good thing.
The gap between rich and poor in the US is widening because of the population growth which is a consequence of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants come to this country and then game the system by having several children. The children are then US citizens who can argue for their parents.
The result of illegal immigration is the descent of the US into third world status.
But liberals will not even allow a DISCUSSION of population growth which has driven Mexico into poverty, as well as many nations of Latin America.
In fact, when presented with arguments against further immigration, liberals typically label these arguments as racist or bigoted.
Race has nothing to do with it.
The superficiality of liberal arguments show that democracy is dead.
50
Please clarify which data you are referring to when you say that population growth has driven Mexico into poverty? The birth rate there is 2.21 - hardly high for a developing nation. Meanwhile, the birth rate here is 1.8, below replacement.
And please point me toward any data showing that economic inequality in the U.S. is driven by illegal immigration. There is none. You have been sold a bill of goods.
Lets face it, Democrats tried a classic bait-and-switch.
They, lead by President Obama, claimed this was all about young, innocent people who, through no fault of their own, were in limbo. How, they claimed, could anyone be so heartless about the Dreamers ?
But it turns out that it's the Democrats who are heartless.
President Trump agreed to a path for citizenship for the Dreamers, but then suddenly that was no longer sufficient for the Democrats.
56
The GOP knows that the demographics are against them; and will therefore NEVER allow Dreamers to become voters.
10
1.8 million votes spread out over 50 states even if concentrated in the western states is not enough to make much of a difference especially if only about 30% vote after becoming citizens which takes years. No its about hostility to darker skinned people and a push to keep America white.
5
Nearly all the immigrants I know are quite conservative: religious, authoritarian, macho, intolerant of liberal views and especially of the rights and roles of women (I speak as a daughter of one such immigrant father, and as a teacher in a high school where over 50% of the students were born in a different country).
If the Democratic plan is to count on that new American demographic to bolster their performance at the polls, they need to think more deeply and listen a bit more. It is surprising how conservative many immigrants are and how likely they are to vote GOP.
7
Where's the supposed "deal maker" in all this. Surely, with side so close, he could make the deal.
3
The deal makers are the working class voters who recognized that they got abandoned by the party apparatus and voted Trump. They're forcing the politicians to deal with their desire to import cheap labor and (D) votes.
9