No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote. The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.
Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really! They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own — brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security.
Yes, the very same Trump who railed against Barack Obama’s protections for the dreamers as “executive amnesty” and just scrapped those protections himself did just say those things. A few points:
Trump just made a big concession and signaled the weakness of his political position. Trump basically just endorsed the main arguments for protecting the dreamers: They are largely blameless for their plight, and they are currently making positive contributions to American life. This will further infuriate the hard-line screamers: They are deeply determined to advance the impression that undocumented immigrants as a class are nothing more than a destructive, invasive, criminal presence, the dreamers very much included.
But this signals that Trump knows going through with driving the dreamers underground and subjecting them to deportation is politically and substantively untenable. He basically just told the screamers to accept this obvious truth. Yes, Trump could of course change his mind tomorrow. But that doesn’t change the fact that his current position got it right: He has implicitly conceded that this would indeed be politically devastating. Trump is desperate to sign things he can call accomplishments. Chances are that he wants to sign something protecting the dreamers. The question is: On what terms?
Trump signaled there is a workable deal he’d probably accept. Trump just redefined building the wall as “new renovations to old and existing fences and walls.” This hints at the possibility that a deal could be reached in which Congress appropriates money that does not meaningfully fulfill Trump’s pledge to build a massive new wall, yet also allows him to tell his base he is winning on the wall in some way regardless. Republicans continue to say they must have border security money in any deal protecting the dreamers, and Democrats have signaled they can accept such an outcome, provided it doesn’t end with Trump erecting the massive, symbolic Talisman of Trumpism he hopes for. There’s probably some way to finesse all these things in ways Democrats and Trump and Republicans would grudgingly accept.
The right can still kill such a deal — here’s how. If it looks as though such a deal has a real chance, look for the hard-liners to try to kill the deal with poison pills. People who are knowledgeable about this issue expect them to tell Trump that his base is in revolt, and that if he must protect the dreamers, he has to throw his base a few added measures, such as a requirement that employers use E-Verify screening to determine whether workers are undocumented, and money to expand Trump’s deportation force. Immigration advocates can accept E-Verify, if it is packaged with legalization of most undocumented immigrants, but without that, it would render many of them unable to support themselves, leading them to self-deport (the whole point).
Democrats would not be able to accept a deal that would mean substantially more deportations and self-deportations, which is why the right would insist on such measures. To summarize: There is probably a deal in trading increased border security (without a wall) for protection for the dreamers, but not one that trades increased interior enforcement for it.
Treat the claims about Trump’s base with skepticism. The hard-liners are pushing the idea that Trump’s base will desert him if he agrees to protections for the dreamers. As Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) put it, this would leave the base “disillusioned beyond repair.” But a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll found that 68 percent of Trump voters favor legislative protections for the dreamers. I don’t claim to know what they think, but let’s not treat it as uncontested fact that the base would hate such an outcome. Many news accounts are doing this. But it seems perfectly plausible that, if Trump were to bless a deal that includes both increased border security and protections for the dreamers, many of his voters would be fine with that.
The hard-liners are pushing the contrary line for strategic reasons — it makes it more likely that they can get Trump to demand the poison pills they want and kill any such deal. But there is no reason for observers and commentators to play along.
Democratic leaders said they plan to continue to play hardball, threatening to push a discharge petition in the coming weeks or trying to attach a Dreamer bill to other must-pass legislation. Democratic leaders also made clear that if DACA isn’t addressed before the current Dec. 8 government funding deadline, Republicans would have to include a legislative fix in the spending bill if they want Democratic votes.
Remember that while Republicans say it’s just fine to wait until March, hundreds of thousands of people are dealing with agonizing uncertainty over whether their lives will be completely uprooted.
Republicans remain divided on key details: whether they can meet Mr. Trump’s demand for a 15 percent corporate tax rate; which small businesses and partnerships would qualify for a new low business tax rate; whether tax cuts in the package should be paid for by closing loopholes; and whether hedge fund and private equity managers would continue to see their huge fees taxed at the low rate of capital gains instead of at income tax rates.
Meanwhile, Trump is out there both demanding slashes to rates and claiming that the rich won’t get any tax cut, which should help matters.
Trump has done little to reach out to Democrats until the past week and has often openly derided them and Obama. Trump has begun dismantling Obama-era regulations and protections on issues including health care, labor and the environment. … He expressed support for another Republican health-care plan … aimed at sharply curtailing Medicaid and other parts of the Affordable Care Act.
If the Graham-Cassidy repeal fails, and Trump drops the repeal push and agrees to a bipartisan package designed to shore up the Obamacare exchanges, then that might mean something.
Republicans focused on 2018 say that Trump’s disinterest is … leaving a troubling void. …This lack of attentiveness, combined with Trump’s constant public haranguing of congressional Republicans with rhetoric and complaints that Democrats can spin into attack ads next year, has left many in the party frustrated. … Meanwhile, Trump continues to feud with the GOP’s two vulnerable Senate incumbents: Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona.
Nobody could have predicted that someone as temperamentally and ideologically solid as Trump would prove to be an unreliable ally.
The Justice Department is preventing Senate investigators from interviewing two top FBI officials who could provide first-hand testimony over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, the latest sign that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could be investigating the circumstances around the firing, officials tell CNN.
The Justice Department says these FBI officials cannot be made available because of Mueller’s probe, but this suggests Mueller is looking hard at the Comey firing as potential obstruction.
We should, indeed, be discussing ways of making our elections much better. We could build on the 2014 report
from a genuinely bipartisan commission … Kobach’s commission, however, is just looking for ways to justify new barriers to voting by groups…not inclined to support Trump, and it doesn’t care what the facts are. We do not need an official government body whose job is to spin fictional horror stories.
As Dionne says, lawmakers should be calling for this sham commission to be disbanded immediately.