Dreamers

Trump's Dreamer-for-Wall Proposal Isn't a Good Faith Deal

But Democrats shouldn't simply walk away.

|

Border Wall
Jonathan McIntosh via Newscom

President Donald Trump has presented a proposal to end the government shutdown—now in its 29th day—that is typical Trump: It is less a credible proposal and more a negotiation tactic whose main goal is to turn the tables on Democrats so that they get blamed for the shutdown rather than him.

Democrats should not refuse to negotiate. But they shouldn't accept this deal either.

I had written some weeks ago that Democrats should give Trump his $5.7 billion in border wall money in exchange for legalizing 700,000 Dreamers and 300,000 TPS holders. (Dreamers are people who were brought to this country without proper authorization as children but who have grown up in this country as Americans. TPS holders, by contrast, are not illegals but folks fleeing natural disasters or turmoil who have been given permission to live in the country on a renewable basis till things stabilize in their native countries. But shortly after Trump suspended the Obama-era DACA program for Dreamers and made them vulnerable to deportation, he also scrapped the TPS status of nationals from El Salvador, Haiti and Nicaragua, setting up about 98 percent of current TPS recipients for deportation if they didn't voluntarily leave by the end of this year. Federal courts have stepped in and prevented the administration from scrapping both the programs for now.)

Democrats should make the offer, I had noted, not because "walls work" as Trump insists. They don't:

drug smugglers will find ways to breach it [the wall] given the enormous profits at stake. And it will do nothing to keep out visa overstays, half of the unauthorized population. It will also simply never be completed because $5 billion is less than a quarter of what would be required to cover the entire 2,000-mile-plus Southern border and what Trump—the "great negotiator"—walked away from during the last shutdown.

However, how much harm would a partial wall really do? It would be a total waste of taxpayer dollars, sure. But the amount of money involved is not even a drop in a $4 trillion budget and it strikes most Americans as utterly stupid that the two sides should have shut down the government over such a trivial amount. Trump has been holding Dreamers and TPS-holders hostage and it would be the lesser of the two evils for Democrats to give him the ransom money for a useless wall rather than risk mass deportations of folks who've built lives in the United States.

However, what Trump is actually offering is not permanent legalization for Dreamers and TPS-holders in exchange for $5.7 billion in border wall funding—plus hundreds of millions to stop drug smugglers etc.—but only a three-year extension of stay.

This is a bad offer because it simply kicks the can down the road. If Trump wins re-election next year, we'll be back to square one and having this same conversation all over again three years from now. And if Democrats win, then Republicans will raise the same hell against "amnesty" to prevent Democrats from legalizing Dreamers as they have been doing for ever.

Trump hinted that his proposed deal is a temporary measure to allow the government to reopen while both sides work on comprehensive immigration reform that would permanently fix the country's broken immigration system. But two previous presidents have tried and failed to make that happen. And any comprehensive solution has to find a way to prevent the problem of the unauthorized from reemerging. That would involve implementing a guest worker program to allow migrants from Central America to work and live in the United States legally rather than having to sneak in illegally. But Trump didn't allude to that. In fact, in his remarks, he revved up his previous accusations that immigrants lower American wages and undercut American jobs.

Furthermore, Trump is playing a weak hand and offering much less than he should given how little leverage he has. The Supreme Court yesterday declined to put the administration's DACA appeal on the docket. This means that the lower court rulings preventing Trump from scrapping DACA will stay in place for at least another year. If the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal, I have predicted, it would rule in Trump's favor because Congress has given the president vast statutory authority to set immigration enforcement priorities. In that case, Trump could have held the specter of deporting Dreamers over the Democrats' head to drive a hard bargain. But the court has pulled the rug out from under him.

None of that means that Democrats should dismiss Trump's offer out of hand in order to deny him a symbolic victory on the wall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared Trump's offer dead on arrival. If that is simply an effort to drive a hard bargain to get a better deal for Dreamers and TPSers, then fine. Democrats have already stopped talking about legalizing all the 11 million or so unauthorized folks—many of them parents of Dreamers. They shouldn't give in any more.

But if that is a prelude to walking away, it will be a mistake.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

281 responses to “Trump's Dreamer-for-Wall Proposal Isn't a Good Faith Deal

  1. Democrats should accept Trump’s deal.

    End birth right citizenship.

    1. Stupid non-sequitur.

      Birthright citizenship has nothing to do with Trump’s offer, or with the current debate over the shutdown.

      1. Ending birth right citizenship would be a major step in “comprehensive immigration reform”.

        BRC is an idiotic and self-destructive policy. Its purpose is long-since accomplished; today it only serves as an irresistible magnet for an endless flow of needy, ill-equipped peasants into the US.

        End birth right citizenship.

        1. How many people come to the US specifically for the purpose of having a child who is a US citizen?

          1. Plenty. And not just from Mexico and Central/South America.

            1. Okay, how many?

              1. You tell us. What’s your number?

                Realize that racebaiterjeff plays the endless postmodern game of wasting your time with demands for facts and evidence that he then ignores while calling you a racist.

                It’s a conscious strategy to impose costs on you while he bears none himself.

                1. Actually, buybuy, nothing so sophisticated as some conscious ‘postmodern’ strategy. Don’t you think we should have a discussion based on facts and numbers, and not just wild hysteric assumptions that birth tourism is some gigantic problem that requires amending the Constitution?

                  1. We’re all well aware you swim in the Lake of Feelz. Facts are nothing more than inconveniences for you to ignore.

                    1. The “Lake of Feelz”, eh? You mean like “birthright citizenship ought to end because the people who use it are icky”?

                    2. Jeffy, do you have anything useful to say? Or are you going to present strawman like a five year old?

                      Learn to have an adult conversation, or fuck off. And don’t make me go get your parents.

                  2. It is a oroblem. This isn’t something that isn’t proven or generally disputed anymore, except by a sophist kid like you. You expect everyone here to listen to your inane proclamations about how things should work as if they are fact, and then refuse to accept well known facts.

                    You except everyone to prove things to you, like that water is wet. Well fuck you. Just because no ome wants to waste their time doesn’t on your nonsense doesn’t make us any less correct.

                    Do you notice a pattern here Jeffy? I’ve been telling this stuff for some time. Now everyone else is telling you too.

                    1. Here is a news flash, shithead. Learn to read. I never said it wasn’t a problem. I asked instead for you all to provide some evidence concerning the nature of the problem. You act as if anyone questioning right-wing dogma on the subject is committing some heresy. Well guess what. I’m not some Fox News-watching puppet who just nods along whenever Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson start screaming about illegal immigrants. You need some actual evidence and reason to have a discussion with me. If you don’t have any evidence then don’t bother.

                    2. ^full progressive

                    3. Yeah you’re right, someone who doesn’t watch Fox News is a “full progressive”. LOL

                    4. Invoking it as if it were a legitimate feature of an argument certainly is

                  3. Note that you haven’t supplied your number for the number you asked of others.

                    Disingenuous

          2. Quite a lot. China has a whole birth tourism industry. But you know this as you’ve been told before mr. Goldfish.

            1. Okay, how many?

              1. What, ‘plenty’ and ‘quite a lot’ aren’t specific enough?

                What do you want? A number? Hard data?

                1. Heaven forfend that we have some factual basis for our opinions!

                  1. Heaven forfend that we have some factual basis for our opinions!

                    Heaven forfend that chemjeff doesn’t get his multicultural socialist utopia!

                    1. For the record, I don’t give a damn about ‘multiculturalism’. I just want people to be free to do what they are going to do. If that results in multiculturalism, fine. If it doesn’t, fine.

                    2. Yes, because you have no future time orientation on what you support.

                  2. It’s well documented. We’re not all going to produce endless citations for very basic well known fact for you. Then watch you pronounce it to be somehow deficient because you don’t like it and then expect more data ad infinitum. That’s the kind of shit you pull.

                    This is why we tend to dismiss you and tel you to go fuck yourself.

                    And seriously, I’ve seem entire documentaries on this subject going back decades.

              2. For the “all immigrants and refugees are natural libertarians” open-border tards:

                Feds Raid ‘Maternity Hotels’ Where Tourists Paid Up to $80K to Give Birth in U.S.

                Birth tourism has been somewhat popular in the United States, with court papers cited in the NBC article estimating that 40,000 children every year were born to women who are in the U.S. on a travel visa.

                Welcome to Maternity Hotel California

                In 2012, according to Chinese state media, there were some 10,000 tourist births from China; more recent estimates have put the number as high as 60,000 a year.

                Make the Chinese Exclusion Act Great Again.

                1. Well then, finally some numbers.

                  So if there are about 50,000 ‘birth tourists’ per year, that would mean that the number of babies born here specifically to take advantage of US citizenship is about ~6% of all births to immigrant parents.

                  And if these parents are willing to spend $80,000 to give birth here, I doubt these are the types of people who are going to be looking for welfare.

                  So we’re going to amend the Constitution because 6% of immigrant births specifically are here for the purpose of gaining US citizenship? Really?

                  1. Wow Jeff. You’re really fucking dumb arent you? Ending Jus Soli doesnt only effect birth tourism but also chain migration. But you’re such a dishonest fuck you segragate these two. I do like how you demand specific numbers for a known issue so you can try to dismiss it put of hand and then dismiss it out of hand when given direct numbers. This is why nobody debates with you, you’re a dishonest fuck. You have jo citations to back up your own views but demand it of others. You will also conveniently deny birth tourism exists in the next thread you are in, ie forget about it like a goldfish. Youre a dishonest fuck who doesnt have the intellectual acumen to make an intelligent argument.

                    1. You are the dishonest fuck in this discussion, Jesse. Let’s review: Ecoli claimed:

                      “[birthright citizenship] only serves as an irresistible magnet for an endless flow of needy, ill-equipped peasants into the US.”

                      And I asked specifically about the number of people who specifically come here for the purpose of giving a child who is a US citizen. Then YOU brought up birth tourism, not me. YOU were the one who segregated birth tourism from the other types of migration. You are just mad that I used your own response to humiliate you about getting worked up over the very small issue of birth tourism.

                      If you want to argue that birthright citizenship is wrong on its own merits, then go right ahead. But of course you are incapable of arguing against birthright citizenship without engaging in your usual right-wing schtick of impugning base motives on those dastardly foreigners. “We have to end birthright citizenship because it’s a magnet for those immigrants to come here and plop out babies!” You cannot prove that the number of people who come here specifically for giving birth is anything more than a relative handful of people and then you get mad when others, who don’t live in your right-wing bubble, don’t just accept your right-wing dogma at face value about the evil motives of those wicked foreigners. Perhaps you could try arguing against birthright citizenship in a way that doesn’t patronize or belittle foreigners. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

                    2. Nah he’s right. You’re a dishonest, and stupid, fuck

                    3. Let me help Jeff… It’s pronounced “I am wrong”

                    4. Wrong about what precisely?

                  2. And if these parents are willing to spend $80,000 to give birth here, I doubt these are the types of people who are going to be looking for welfare

                    Guatamalens will give $9K to a coyote to smuggle them across the border. Yet they have no problem taking the white man’s welfare while guilt-tripping him into thinking he’s a racist if Spanish-only classes and breakfast and lunch aren’t provided to their TB-infected spawn.

                  3. And those are just the ones here on VISASs. So the total number is higher.

                    “And if these parents are willing to spend $80,000 to give birth here, I doubt these are the types of people who are going to be looking for welfare.”

                    Ok, how many aren’t. Give me a number.

                    See how that works Jeffy? I think we should all do this to you, endlessly.

                    1. I don’t know the number. But then again I’m not the one freaking out about the problem and demanding that the Constitution be changed because of it.

                      Is it really rational to demand such a sweeping change to immigration law based on a problem that you don’t know how big or pervasive it is? Or even to assess the costs, alternatives, etc.? The answer is no, because your position is not based on reason, it is based on feelz.

                      Here is the truth. Even if there was zero birth tourism, you and your tribe would demand an end to birthright citizenship anyway. This is all just a big motte and bailey tactic:

                      Bailey: “We should end birthright citizenship because the wrong type of people are now using it to obtain citizenship here”

                      Motte: “We should end birthright citizenship because, uh, some unknown number of people are abusing it as birth tourists”

                      But since the normies won’t accept the bailey argument, because it sounds too explicitly racist, then you trot out your fake motte argument, which has a veneer of respectability, in order to generate allies for your view.

                    2. No amendment needed.
                      “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a specific reference to political, rather than legal, jurisdiction.
                      Two German nationals vacationing in Atlanta and the woman goes into labor, bearing the child in Piedmont hospital. That child is a German national and citizen, as its parents are. That child, like its parents, is subject to the civic jurisdiction of Germany, not the US. That citizenship has been granted to foreign nationals born on American soil is a de facto, not de jure, situation – and an incorrect application of the 14th amendment. Former slaves, whom the amendment was designed to cover, held the status not of foreign nationals but of (former) property, thus stateless prior to being granted citizenship.

                    3. Well finally someone trots out an argument against birthright citizenship that isn’t based on paranoid fearmongering about OMG BIRTH TOURISTS.

                      I find this argument fairly persuasive:

                      http://www.aei.org/publication…..amendment/

                      Basically, the Fourteenth Amendment simply codified existing practice of jus soli, inherited from British common law, into the Constitution.

                      What do you mean by “civic jurisdiction”? Allegiance?

                    4. Indeed.

                      Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the 14th amendment’s architects:
                      “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

                      Try this:
                      http://www.federalistblog.us/2…..isdiction/

        2. For that matter, how many people come here specifically for the purpose of going on welfare?

          Would *you* walk 2,000 miles through a foreign country full of hostile people and forbidding terrain for the sake of… Section 8 vouchers? Really?

          I don’t doubt that there are a few people who do, but the numbers have to be rather small. Of course this small number of people is blown way out of proportion by the fear merchants using the scary furriners as scapegoats for the purpose of achieving power.

          I think this is why, if you actually look at the numbers, the proportion of immigrants who consume welfare are approximately the same as the proportion of the native-born population, *when compared among those of a similar socio-economic background*. If there were gobs of immigrants who came here just for the purpose of going on welfare, wouldn’t that proportion be much higher?

          1. Yeah, you’ve said this before, several times. Your questions have been answered. So just stop. You’re wasting time while adults are talking.

            Off to bed with you now Little Jeffy.

            1. You haven’t answered any questions, shithead. All you do is just threaten to kill people.

              1. These questions are answered over and over. You just ignore them.

                1. No, you just assume that illegal immigrants come here for the explicit purpose of getting on welfare. You don’t bother to prove it, because it’s become a part of right-wing dogma on the subject.

                  1. No, you just assume that illegal immigrants come here for the explicit purpose of getting on welfare.

                    If that welfare ended, most of them would go home. And you know it.

                    1. If that welfare ended, most of them would go home. And you know it

                      How do you know this?

                      Actually, the empirical evidence suggests the opposite. During the economic crash of 2008-09, when welfare spending was increasing, illegal immigrants were *going home*, not the reverse. Because the jobs were drying up.

                      Welfare spending increasing:
                      http://www.usgovernmentspendin…..e_spending (Note the spike right around 2008-09)

                      Illegal immigration decreasing over same time frame:
                      http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-a-decade/

                      So where is your evidence that illegal immigrants are specifically drawn here for the ‘allure’ of welfare?

                    2. Also, note who is arguing from a position of numbers and facts and data, and which team is arguing from a position of bare assertion (they are here for the welfare, and you know it!), insults, and feelz.

                    3. You’ve never argued from numbers and facts. The numbers you use ignore such costs as ESL costs in public schools, costs to hospitals, costs to jails, DES services for children of illegals, etc. You are dishonest. You also ignore the chain migration that subsumed a large portion of our legal immigration numbers.

                    4. You’ve never argued from numbers and facts.

                      I just posted numbers and facts, above.

                      The numbers you use ignore such costs as ESL costs in public schools, costs to hospitals, costs to jails, DES services for children of illegals, etc.

                      In the context of this discussion, I wasn’t trying to come up with the total public costs of all immigrants. I was asking the question of whether immigrants come here specifically for the purpose of consuming welfare services. So it would be rather odd indeed to include something like “cost of jails” in that category, since I really doubt any immigrant comes here for the purpose of going to jail.

                      So you are totally right, that I was ignoring costs that were not germane to the discussion that I was actually having!

                      You are dishonest.

                      You are the one dishonestly trying to twist my discussion into something that it was not, and then blasting me for not engaging forthrightly in the conversation that you pretended I was having.

                      You also ignore the chain migration that subsumed a large portion of our legal immigration numbers.

                      Your team is the one making the claim that birthright citizenship ought to end. Why is it my duty to try to make your case for you? Go right ahead and make the case (if you can) why birthright citizenship ought to be ended due to its role in chain migration. But first you’d actually have to understand what chain migration really is.

                    5. So where is your evidence that illegal immigrants are specifically drawn here for the ‘allure’ of welfare?

                      Maybe its the fact that you can track the free/reduced lunch use in schools in several areas of Colorado by the ratio of Hispanic students attending it.

                    6. Maybe its the fact that you can track the free/reduced lunch use in schools in several areas of Colorado by the ratio of Hispanic students attending it.

                      Of course, not every brown person is an immigrant. What do you think this is supposed to prove?

                    7. Did you note that your usgovernmentspending link shows welfare spending *going down* since the 2008-09 spike?

                    8. It went down as a percentage of GDP, yes.

                    9. Whether their intent is to “come here for the explicit purpose of getting on welfare” – cannot be answered.

                      Whether most of the them end up on welfare has already been answered by every welfare system available and short of the Asian population the answer is from the very start at birth about 60 to 70% are indeed welfare recipients vs 30% for White and Asian.

                      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ nvsr67/nvsr67_01.pdf

                      81% of Democratic voters are on public housing assistance and 70 to 80% of foreign races vote Democratic. What’s to argue about??? Some little nitched and cherry-picked subject filtered and area filtered study that goes against the very basis of the entire DNC system?

                      No, not all immigrants are on welfare – but short of Asians; MOST ARE!

                2. Jesse, Little Jeffy is a tiresome idiot, isn’t he. He really needs his daddy to beat the crap out of him for being such an impertinent little pest.

              2. “There is no official data on birth tourism in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies, which wants stricter limits on immigration, estimates there are 36,000 babies born in the U.S. to foreign nationals a year, though the numbers could be substantially lower. Florida says births in the state by all foreign nationals who live outside the United States have jumped 200 percent since 2000

                From NBC dingus

          2. Births to Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.

            “In 2014, one in five births (791,000) in the United States was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal). Our best estimate is that legal immigrants accounted for 12.4 percent (494,000) of all births, and illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5 percent (297,000).”

            800,000 babies in 2014, all newly hatched US citizens. Most of them probably at tax payer expense. All of them eligible for all of the social support the US provides. If that trend is extended in a straight line, that comes to about 4 million since 2014.

            Birth right citizenship is foolish. Its purpose has been served, and that purpose, to mandate citizenship for freed slaves, was legitimate. There haven’t been any slaves to free since 1865.

            1. You do know that about half of *all* births are paid for by Medicaid, right?

              So let’s do some rough math. In 2014, there were about 4 million births, and about 2 million of those were paid for by welfare. Let’s suppose just for the sake of argument that about 2/3rds of immigrant births were paid for via welfare, so that would mean about 530,000 or so immigrant births were paid for via welfare. So, roughly, 25% of the births that welfare paid for, were to immigrants. And now you argue that birthright citizenship ought to be ended, because of all the welfare that those immigrant babies represent. Well okay, but they are only about 25% of the problem. The other 75% is due to the native-born citizens themselves. Even if 100% of the immigrant births were paid for via welfare, they would still constitute a minority of the problem. So wanting to end birthright citizenship based on how much welfare that immigrants consume, sounds a lot like scapegoating foreigners for a problem that they didn’t create and don’t contribute all that much to.

              IMO a much more solid argument against birthright citizenship is to argue that citizenship is akin to membership in a club, and the club’s current members ought to have some say in who is admitted into the club. Granting citizenship at birth denies existing members of the opportunity to evaluate prospective new members.

              1. And now you argue that birthright citizenship ought to be ended, because of all the welfare that those immigrant babies represent. Well okay, but they are only about 25% of the problem. The other 75% is due to the native-born citizens themselves. Even if 100% of the immigrant births were paid for via welfare, they would still constitute a minority of the problem.

                Medicaid would end up costing far less, though, so best to not let them come here in the first place to take advantage of it.

            2. You still haven’t answered the question:

              “How many people come to the US specifically for the purpose of having a child who is a US citizen?”

              You just said how many babies were born to immigrants in 2014.

              1. You just said how many babies were born to immigrants in 2014.

                That’s 800,000 too many.

                1. You’d rather the US be one of the growing number of nations with negative population growth, an aging population and a decreasing worker to retired ratio?

                  You’re not an economist, are you?

                  1. So are the newbies high productivity, high income?

                    If they add to costs more than they supply in benefits?

                  2. We take in 1 million legal immigrants a year. Let’s not pretend we have closed borders dumb fuck.

                    1. The budget for the Border Patrol budget alone exceeds $3 billion. Don’t pretend that we have open borders either.

                    2. We have selectively enforced immigration laws applied with variable frequency, and a border that is unsecured, lacks integrity, and is continually violated.
                      That is de facto open borders.
                      As an advocate of open borders, you should be as vehement in your support of a secured border as anybody. The status quo hurts your argument and leaves those whom you are nominally concerned for vulnerable.
                      Yet you persist in undermining your own position.

                  3. You’d rather the US be one of the growing number of nations with negative population growth, an aging population and a decreasing worker to retired ratio?

                    Open border-tards always argue that a nation of 325 million people won’t adjust to 50 million fewer people in the country.

                2. That’s 800,000 too many.

                  All 800,000 of them? Even those from legal immigrants?
                  So you don’t want any immigration at all then?

                  1. I’d be happy with pre-1965 immigration laws.

          3. What’s your number, racebaiterjeff?

          4. You haven’t been to California lately, have you? Still think it’s like those Sunkist commercials from the 80s? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-OvnkRVsF8

            You’re in for a shock. This is about 3 miles from where I grew up. Used to ride my bike to the beach down this trail every weekend. Let’s say it’s changed a wee bit.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45qSj4_DVxs

            1. I’ll bet every one of them is an illegal. Can’t build that wall fast enough.

              1. I’ll bet you’re very wrong about that little shitty.

            2. Do they have camping permits? In many places you get sent away and fined for such behavior.

              This is the Tragedy of the Commons in action.

    2. Service (to the state) guarantees citizenship.

    3. We should keep birthright citizenship. We don’t want a situation where families get deported after living in a country for thousands of years. It is tragic the way Muslim-majority counties expelled Jews in the middle of the 20th Century.

      1. The constitution prevents that kind of discrimination.

  2. “However, what Trump is actually offering is not permanent legalization . . . but only a three-year extension of stay.

    Trump has no political incentive to give in, and the Democrats aren’t refusing to reopen the government out of any sense of principle. Their primary motivation–Nancy Pelosi’s primary objective–is to deny Trump a political victory. She and the Democrat leadership don’t care about immigration or policy anywhere near as much as they care about depriving Trump of a political victory. Her position as Speaker depends on it.

    Meanwhile, Trump has little or nothing to lose for refusing to give up on a campaign promise. It’s almost funny watching his enemies destroy the credibility of their own arguments. On the one hand, they want to savage Trump for failing to keep his promises on the wall; on the other hand, they want him to give up on his promise to build the wall? That would be incoherent from a policy perspective to the point of becoming pathetic.

    . . . but then their objective was never to liberalize immigration, stop a wall from being built, or even to emancipate the dreamers. Their primary objective was always to embarrass Trump. They care far more about that than they ever did about immigration, and when push comes to shove, they’ll take any fig leaf they can get and call it victory. Then they’ll move on to the next crisis.

    Then they’ll move on to impeaching Trump.

    1. From Politico: “Pelosi called the idea a ‘non-starter,’ and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also panned the proposal as a way to reopen the government, even though Trump’s plan cribbed from Durbin’s own legislation.”

      It’s the Dems’ “crumbs” gambit all over again.

    2. Politico confirms that food stamps could be affected by the shutdown:

      State agencies are warning food stamp recipients to carefully budget their grocery purchases once they receive their February benefits weeks earlier than normal due to the partial government shutdown.

      The Department of Agriculture’s backup plan for paying out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits amid the lapse in funding means it could be 40 days ? or longer, in some cases ? before additional money is added to recipients’ benefit cards. There is also no guarantee about when nearly 39 million low-income Americans will next receive another payment to help them buy groceries.

      Democrats will soon have trouble explaining their stubbornness to constituents. By the way:

      The Trump administration’s backup plan did not tap into a contingency fund of $3 billion that Congress provided for the program last year. One month of SNAP benefits costs about $4.8 billion, however. USDA has declined to discuss other funding options that might be available if the shutdown is not resolved before it is time to pay out March benefits.

    3. The shutdown is about the 2020 election and nothing else. Dems are in a great negotiating position and can put almost anything in the budget and get it passed as long as they include Trumps 5 bill wall funding but they would rather see the entire country go down in flames than give Trump his wall for fear that will give him the upper hand in 2020. Trump could do the same thing and propose almost any budget he wanted and get dem support as long as it did not include the wall but there is really nothing else he wants.

      1. If and when Trump is impeached, that’ll be all about 2020 as well. They only care about the issues insofar as they hurt Trump in some way.

        To some extent, that should be expected because of the way Trump absconded with so many Democrat issues. Trump actually did all the things on China and NAFTA that the Democrats have been promising to do since forever. The Democrats can’t win middle America by pushing the limits for feminists, BLM, illegal aliens, radical environmentalists, and LGBTQI+ activists. And what else have they got?

        It’s probably better for them to ignore the issues and make it all about Trump.

        1. It’s true and it’s sad. The Republicans and Democrats are all so blatantly after their own agendas. I am amazed how many people on this thread make it about how their “side” is right and the other is “wrong”. Silly. This is just politics. Which is why Big Government is inherently flawed.

    4. They care about immigration because it means more Democrat voters and more socialism in the long (or even short) run.

    5. Another reason for Lefties to hate Trump is that they are playing reactionary to his chess moves.

      The timing of all this coming together is genius for Trump. He got federal funding for the military, so a shutdown would not get bad press about starving military wives and children. Trump signed two bloated budgets to set the stage that he would sign FY2019 budget. Trump has not really fought for the border wall much yet.

      Now Trump ties border fence funding to a budget that allows him to drain the swamp. The Democrats think they cannot give in to the border wall because it would give Trump a win. This takes Congress and the OPM Lefty bureaucrats mostly out of the loop to eliminate tens of thousands of federal worker positions.

      Then Trump either gets more money for a border wall after Democrats cave to end federal firings or Trump drains the swamp almost completely and then uses military money to build some border fence.

      1. Huh? Chess moves? Seriously? Those aren’t chess moves. This whole mess has been politically damaging. Trump waffled in December when he still had a House that would vote for his policies. That wasn’t a tactically brilliant move. All I see are politicians squabbling for their own gain. Left or right just care about their political futures, not about the people. Which is why Big Government sucks. Try not be such a fanboy. Trust me, whoever is in power next you’ll probably hate. That’s the way the cycle goes.

  3. See no one wants to compromise any more. Total victory or nothing.

    Trump has something the democrats want – legaliing the dreamers, and democrats can give him what he wants, the wall. Make a deal or stfu

    1. Trump’s compromise is far more of a compromise than what the Democrats have offered. 3 years puts the issue to the next President.

      1. Jesse Ventura?

        1. Ace Ventura?

      2. Ted Nugent?

      3. IBM’s Watson?

        1. Siri – Alexa 2020

          1. “Hey Siri: taxation is theft.”

            -jcr

            1. And then she locks you in the bathroom.

      4. Donald J. Trump.

    2. The Dems care more about keeping the pipeline of illegals open than legalizing any particular batch of illegal aliens.

    3. They won’t give him the wall because they think that it will also give him the 2020 election. They don’t care about dreamers, they care about winning back the white house in 2020.

      1. Their thirst for power is all consuming.

    4. When do democrats compromise? They usually sit back and wait for the republicans to cave.

  4. If Democrats are certain they will beat Trump in 2020, they would take the deal as it ends the threat of deportation under Trump.

    Does Shikha really think amnesty for all is worth only 6 billion? We learned what happened when a Shikha like deal was made in 1986. Still waiting on the security and visa monitoring programs promised in that agreement, but we know Democrats are fucking liars.

    1. Does Shikha really think
      Does Shikha think
      think

      See, here’s where you go wrong. It’s Shikha.

      1. I agree with your analysis Fancy.

    2. Yeah, three years from now, who knows who will be president?

      If the Democrats don’t take the deal, they’re the ones throwing the dreamers under the bus.

      1. Well, I know, but I’ve been sworn to secrecy.

        1. Unnamed source secrecy or real secrecy?

      2. No. Trump has already conceded the issue on Dreamers. He has no will to enforce immigration law on them. Ever.

        The only question is how much more of the current illegal alien population Trump has no will to deport.

        The Wall, if built, would only be one of many technological means to reduce illegal immigration. But without the will to deport illegal aliens, all those technological means are just immigration enforcement theater.

        Build the Will to Enforce Immigration Laws.

      3. Trump owning Lefties like he does, just makes it a near certainty that if Trump runs in 2020, Trump will win.

    3. They are certain they will lose to Trump if they give him his wall so they won’t take the deal. In fact they won’t take any deal that included the wall no matter how favorable for fear of Trump winning in 2020. Trump is offering a compromise, “I’ll trade X for the wall”. In a normal negotiation there would be a counter offer “We want X, Y, and Z and you can have your wall” but the dems are not making any counter offers. It seems both Trump and the dems are convinced the outcome of the 2020 election will be decided on who breaks first. My prediction is the dems will break but only after they are convinced they can use the shutdown to defeat Trump in 2020.

      1. The Democrats will break after they realize that Trump is using the shutdown to eliminate tens of thousands federal employee positions permanently.

        After Democrats have to give in, Trump can get even more than $5 billion for the wall.

        Democrats care more about government largess than they do about a border fence.

        1. Democrats care more about government largess than they do about a border fence. anything. Dems bribe their voters with our money. F ’em.

  5. The wall will not stop everyone, but nothing else will either! Point is, it will stop many, and we need a new solution as the way the issue is being addressed now isn’t working. Trump’s compromise is worth it….

    1. That the wall isn’t a panacea I think people understand. He’s proposing 230 miles in areas most needed for one. How the Democrats think this is ‘immoral’ is retarded especially since they called for one themselves in the past.

      Start the process of negotiations. Seems to me Trump is offering and trying. What do the Democrats want besides what suspiciously looks like moves based on political expediency? On this alone he’s more open than Obama ever was.

      1. What do the Democrats want? They want Trump to lose in 2020. That’s it. They feel the best way to accomplish that is to make Trump look bad by not allowing him to keep his number one campaign promise.

        1. Yep. Like the de roars would otherwise care about a $5 billion dollar line item in the budget. They probably divert more than that to their slush fund for hookers and rape/harassment payoffs.

  6. Yeah it’s a pretty bad deal. If it were full amnesty for DREAMers, that would be closer to a reasonable deal. It’s time to stop using these people as political footballs. This is as good as time as any to finally put this issue to rest.

    1. The dreamers should be offered citizenless residency. As long as chain migration is needed, the wall is 100% funded for the whole border, and bipartisan legislation is enacted ending birthright citizenship for children of foreigners.

      1. Now *that’s* a bad-faith offer.

        1. No Jeffy, that’s a good faith offer. It solves the issue that tugs at your widdle heartstrings and it solves a number of major immigration related problems.

          You just don’t like it.

      2. +1000

    2. Fuck off Jeff. 6 billion for full amnesty which would allow them a path to welfare as well? Fuck off.

      1. It would also allow them to finally establish a permanent presence without the specter of deportation hanging over their heads. Sure some might go on welfare, but since they tend to be more educated and have better career prospects than your typical immigrant, fewer of them will likely do so.

        It is telling that your knee-jerk response, to a proposal to grant amnesty to DREAMers, is “OMG they will go on welfare”.

        1. Illegal immigrants are better educated than legal immigrants?

          You are not merely on drugs, you have snorted the entire nation of Colombia up your nose.

          1. I am referring to DREAMers, most of whom were educated in this country.

            1. Educated in this country?

              That is not a sterling endorsement.

              1. Well, it tends to be better than Central American education regimes at any rate.

            2. Chemjeff’s citation fell off.

              US education sucks compared to other 1st world nations.
              U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries

      2. You aren’t going to like the next few decades of American improvement any more than you have liked the most recently 70 years or so of liberal-libertarian progress. As has become customary, America will improve against the wishes and efforts of conservatives.

        Many right-wingers will respond by becoming whining malcontents or all-talk blusterers.

        1. Or turning hicklibs into human windchimes.

          1. Strange fruit.

        2. Arty, you and your cunt friends could be wiped off the map in a week, two tops. Don’t ever forget you exist only due to the to,erance of the conservatives and libertarians that actually know not to fight and don’t faint at the sight of a gun.

          Best you and the aforementioned cunts not test that tolerance.

    3. ” It’s time to stop using these people as political footballs. This is as good as time as any to finally put this issue to rest.”

      Indeed. It’s time to deport them.

    4. I would be happy to trade a dreamer citizenship if it’s for yours

  7. Shocker — Dalmia is clueless about what NEGOTIATION means.

    1. +10

      1. “Dalmia is clueless”

        Just stop there.

  8. Shikha needs to get a better hobby.

    1. Firewatcher?

    2. She’d make an excellent TSA agent.

    3. Back in India?

  9. Trump’s deal is not a good faith deal. What he should do is give the Democrats a hamburger today, for which they’ll gladly agree to pay on some future Tuesday.

    /Dalmia

    1. Showing your age there Chip. I may be the only one here who got the joke.

      1. There are now three of us.

      2. What can I say? I am what I am, and that’s all what I am.

      3. Don’t be so wimpy.

      4. I often wonder how many of those old statues are still around next to McDonalds.

      5. Go eat spinach

      6. Some of us ARE sailor men.

        1. Insert seamen joke here.

      7. Let’s have a duck dinner. You bring the duck.

        See, you aren’t the only one.

    2. Like the 1986 amnesty. Amnesty today for enforcement that never comes.

      1. +100

  10. DREAMers are healthy and productive. They don’t need social services. Therefore they should renounce medicaid and welfare. Then Americans would accept them with open arms. Show some faith in America and we’ll have faith in you. Otherwise it just seems like you’re trying to take advantage of our hospitality (at the expense of government workers). As for the wall, any compromise would amount to betraying their bad hombre uncles who will be rounded up and detained until the wall is ‘finished’ (i.e. never). It’s not worth it. Don’t be kapos.

    1. Your citation fell off.

  11. Therefore they should renounce medicaid and welfare. Then Americans would accept them with open arms. Show some faith in America and we’ll have faith in you.

    I hate to break it to you, but welfare is a part of America now.

    1. Dreamers aren’t American. So they shouldn’t even be eligible for those things.

      1. What do you know, you’ve never had a dream in your life that didn’t involve dismembering children.

        1. I have no problem with children, nor do I have a penchant for fucking them, unlike a certain commenter named Tony that I won’t mention.

          Oops…….

          1. Oh, and I don’t see them as de facto slave labor like you and your progtard buddies do. For your ‘dinners’.

            1. Oh, and I don’t see them as de facto slave labor

              Sure you do. As long as they are slave labor somewhere else.

              1. Chemjeff wants to save all non-Americans by using US taxpayers…just not at his house.

                1. Nope. But I do want the border restrictionist crowd to acknowledge the full costs of the plans that they propose.

                  It’s rare to get the border restrictionist crowd to acknowledge that one cost of their policies is that would-be immigrants that are turned away suffer (generally) a worse standard of living, and possibly even violence and death.

                  And the reason that the border restrictionist crowd doesn’t acknowledge these costs, is because it’s not really a cost in their mind, because the cost is borne by those people, and not by Americans – you know, the only people who truly matter on the entire planet.

                  1. Sorry, Jeff, we haven’t yet reached the internationalist communism one world government you yearn for, and many of us wish to avoid.
                    Yes, the American government’s interest is Americans, not the other 7.2 billion people in the world.
                    If you care so deeply about these people, there are many many ways for you to aid them directly. It would be more productive for your nominal concerns than bitching about how “border restrictionists don’t care enough about the noble savages, and don’t acknowledge their white man’s burden!”
                    Your decadence is truly a sight to behold.

                    1. I am not asking the government to save everyone. I am asking *you* to recognize that your policies have costs on people other than Americans, and to actually include those as a real human cost.

                    2. I am asking *you* to recognize that your policies have costs on people other than Americans

                      Doesn’t matter.

                    3. “I am asking *you* to recognize that your policies have costs on people other than Americans, and to actually include those as a real human cost.”

                      Ok.
                      Done.
                      I’m good with my position.
                      Your turn.

                    4. This is my point. When people like you make arguments like “oh we need a wall in order to deter coyotes from smuggling those poor exploited migrants over the border” or “oh we need more immigration law enforcement in order to stop those poor exploited migrants from being mistreated by employers paying them under the table”, it is a completely dishonest argument, because you have no problem seeing those same people exploited and abused, as long as they are being abused somewhere else.

                      And it is one of many reasons why many see this entire border restrictionism fantasy in the context of bigotry. You fundamentally don’t view these migrants as equal to yourself in terms of their fundamental dignity. That is why you don’t mind to see families separated at the border as an act of deterrence, even though you would be utterly outraged if the same thing happened to Americans, because you fundamentally don’t see the migrants as morally as worthy of concern as Americans.

                    5. Jeff, you’re the one living in fantasy.
                      I’ve never based any argument on any of those things you mentioned or on ethnicity.
                      My contentions have always been based on national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
                      People of any color, creed, or condition streaming across the border contrary to the procedure and wishes of the nation is an invasion, whether they’re carrying arms and wearing a uniform or not.
                      I’ll let others make pragmatic arguments beyond our lack of need to import poor people who are neither inclined nor encouraged to assimilate.
                      Mistaking your fantasies for reality is psychosis. And it’s characteristic of progressivism.

                    6. People of any color, creed, or condition streaming across the border contrary to the procedure and wishes of the nation is an invasion, whether they’re carrying arms and wearing a uniform or not.

                      I doubt you agree with that statement with any degree of rigor or consistency.

                      Are college students who overstay their visas “INVADERS”, or not? If so, why have I never heard even half of the hysteria and concern over all of those visa overstayers being OMG INVADERS as I have heard about migrants walking over the southern border?

                    7. I have no problem with you considering them such.
                      You’ll note a key difference: Visa overstayers were at one point invited/welcomed/approved before refusing to leave.
                      They’re a problem too, but qualitatively less so than those entering surreptitiously

                    8. I have no problem with you considering them such.
                      You’ll note a key difference: Visa overstayers were at one point invited/welcomed/approved before refusing to leave.
                      They’re a problem too, but qualitatively less so than those entering surreptitiously

                    9. So your premise is that if people in foreign countries have a bad time, it’s ipour fault for not letting them al,come here at will?

                      You are a total idiot.

                    10. Not playing world police and taking out dictators around the world has consequences for those poor people too. Somehow I don’t think you’d accept that as a legitimate argument for foreign adventurism.

              2. Oh, so you favor unlimited foreign intervention anywhere that children are at risk? Or do you intend to bring all of,them here? From everywhere.

                Dumbass.

        2. Dismembering children bothers you? When did you give up your support for abortion, Tony?

          -jcr

          1. Translation: faith goood, ownlife baad, Allah be praised!

            1. Fuck you Hank. We are all quite aware of your thirst for murdering helpless infants.

          2. If I haven’t announced it strongly enough before, let me go on record as having changed my mind about legalizing abortion up to the 57th trimester.

    2. At least you’re finally honest about being a global welfare for all paid by Americans with job. Really starting to think you dont have a job.

    3. What a ludicrous thing to say, jeff.

      Now, let’s get back to the fact that welfare is so pervasive in this country that even non-citizens are taking advantage of it to the point of dooming us all.

  12. It is only a deal if the other side wishes to buy what you are selling.

  13. I hate to break it to you, but welfare is a part of America now.

    I hate to break it to you, but this is why I despise today’s libertarians. Maybe go comment on Slate or MoJo.

    1. Jeffy isn’t a libertarian.

    2. I’m not saying I like it. But those are the facts.

      1. Fuck off Jeff. You know you like it because you never speak against it. even when people discuss the fact that open borders and free welfare dont mix you bury your head on the sand.

        1. I dare you to produce any quotation whatsoever from me proclaiming my support for welfare.

          Unlike you, however, I am capable of rationally understanding the nature of the problem.

          I don’t hold immigrants to a higher standard than native-born Americans hold themselves to. Immigrants and native-born Americans of the same socioeconomic background consume welfare at about the same rate. Since immigrants are a minority of the population, they also represent a minority of the welfare problem. Continuing to harp on immigrants as welfare moochers is an unfair characterization and only serves to push a right-wing narrative portraying immigrants as a bunch of lazy moochers.

          Yes a welfare state and open borders can potentially represent a challenge. But the way to solve these types of challenges is not to restrict people’s liberty even more.

          1. He said “You know you like it because you never speak against it”

            Stupid fucking cant read jeff said “I dare you to produce any quotation whatsoever from me proclaiming my support for welfare.”

            On what idiot fucking planet full of retards does ” you don’t speak against it” equate to “provide a quote i spoke in favor of it”

            It’s like jeff is stupid, intractable, and illiterate simultaneously.

            The absolute worst part is that idiot fucking moron jeff will defend his non reply as responsive, vigorously, no matter how stupid it makes him look.

            1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

              1. It’s not his fault you’re a commie tool, who not coincidentally, lacks reading comprehension. If only you understood some of those history books you tried to read?

                1. Grow up.

                2. What kind of history Do they teach third graders these days?

              2. Jeffy, that wa rude. Apologize to Tulpa.

                1. Fuck off shithead.

      2. Yeah, we’re not getting rid of welfare any time soon.

  14. Seriously, could people be required to learn the English language before writing headlines for Reason?

    If it’s a real offer, it’s in good faith. Direct translation of the Latin bona fide. It might be a bad offer, but given Trump certainly has the ability to fulfill his end, it’s a good faith offer unless you have reason to expect that Trump wouldn’t go through with it if the Democrats agreed to it.

    1. Doncha know? Orange man bad.

  15. Trump’s Dreamer-for-Wall Proposal Isn’t a Good Faith Deal. . .
    On the contrary it is a good deal for the nation. It would be a cheap means to prevent illegal immigration in the near future while the legislator deals with improving the laws controlling immigration for the long haul. That would give the legislators time to improve the guest workers laws. Guest workers could be brought into the country for a given job or time period but the workers would be expected to leave at the end of that time. If they did not leave when arrested that person would on the first offense would be deported and would be barred for a period of five years. If they overstay the second time they would serve some time in prison and be barred permanently. If both cases when deported if they had married while in the US and had minor children the spouse if citizen or legal in the US and children would have the choice to stay in the US or go with the spouse.
    Another change in the immigration law I think should be that a person to come to the USA should have a sponsor who would be responsible for the person for a minimum time to provide housing and food and clothing and health care for that time frame. No person could sponsor more persons that they can afford to support for that time of sponsorship.

    1. Sponsorship, with full financial and legal responsibility for a period of no less than 5 years, really is the answer.
      Of course, fanatics like chemjeff would pitch a fit.

    2. Sponsorship is already a component of the naturalization process.

      Sponsorship is not a terrible idea, but the criteria cannot be too onerous, otherwise it is just a disguised quota.

      Moreover sponsorship really isn’t necessary for simple migration, as opposed to naturalization.

      1. As long as we keep,a reasonable cap on ‘migration’, by which I assume you mean a guest worker program, then yes. Once illegals are sorted out and largely RE over from the liturgy we will need more legal guest workers.

        Which is the way it should be. Then employers can’t fuck them over, or get away with paying artificially low wages, shitotjg out Americans.

        1. “liturgy”?

          You really need to do something about your autocorrect feature.

          1. So do a lot of us.

            So? Do you have a point other than that?

            1. and largely RE over from the liturgy

              This makes no sense.

        2. Then employers can’t fuck them over,

          This is such a dishonest argument coming from the likes of you.

          YOU DON”T CARE if these people are being exploited by employers, as long as they are being exploited by employers somewhere else/

          1. Jeff, you don’t care if these people are being exploited by employers, as long as they’re being exploited here.

            1. lol

    1. The first is clearly in violation of Ike-Nixon neighborhood restrictive covenants AND the Christian NSDAP 1935 Nuremberg laws. Shikha could use the second item (with photo of wall between Jerusalem and Jihadiland) to prove that walls don’t work, since the American got past it.

  16. “And it will do nothing to keep out visa overstays, half of the unauthorized population.”

    So you lock your front door to keep burglars out, since 50% of them come in that way, but not your back door?

    1. Yeah, I think there are two main misconceptions Dalmia is suffering from in this article.

      1) The idea that Trump is in the weaker position.

      Until an interest payment gets missed, he has more to lose from giving in than he has to lose from staying the course. I just don’t see him losing the support of swing voters in the rust belt swing states that put him in office because he fought to keep a campaign promise.

      Dalmia seems to imagine it’s Trump that’s desperate, here.

      2) The idea that the Democrats genuinely care about immigration or immigrants.

      This is all a political calculation to them. They might rather keep the dreamers as poster children for the greater cause rather than give up the issue. Regardless, their primary motivation is to deny Trump the ability to keep a campaign promise. If Trump had made a campaign promise to personally mow the White House lawn every Sunday, the Democrat leadership in the House would deny him the funds to pay for the lawnmower. This isn’t about immigration to them. It’s about Trump.

      Otherwise, why would they argue that the wall will be ineffective and argue out of the other side of their mouths that stopping the wall is so important, the government should be shut down to stop it from being built?

      1. “2) The idea that the Democrats genuinely care about immigration or immigrants.”
        Perhaps someone can explain why this is so, but the populations of central and south America (from which the immigrants emerge) tend to favor socialism, and vote for it. And then, when it (inevitably) fails, they seem to migrate.
        Why, for instance, do they not stop in Mexico? Why do they, who have likely voted for, or not opposed, socialism in the country where they lived, want to pass through Mexico to get to the US?
        I’m still in favor of ambitious folks coming to the U/s, but I’d like to hear some justification for entry (and citizenship) other than ‘the place I left is a shithole’.
        Yeah, and did you do anything to change it?

        1. Poverty is about having few options, and there are options aplenty for people who are willing to work for them in the United States. Supply and demand will have their way with the law–the law is economic forces’ jailhouse bitch. I think keeping illegal immigrants out of the U.S. is a lot like trying to keep marijuana and cocaine out. So long as the money and the demand are here and the supply of marijuana and cocaine is there, the marijuana and cocaine are coming here and the money is going there.

          It’s the same thing with illegal immigration. So long as there is cash and labor intensive work here and idle labor there, the labor is coming. Something like the Berlin wall will put a stop to that immigration, but the desirability of interfering with labor markets that way remains an enormous question mark for me–for the same reasons I question the government interfering in most any market. Why would we want that?

          1. I appreciate that government spending on social services goes up with illegal immigration, but I also don’t see why those two issues need to be tied together. The solution to government spending on social services isn’t restricting immigration. The solution to government spending on social services is to cut that spending. I’ve never been anything short of enthusiastic about cutting Medicaid, privatizing public schools, cutting off rent credits and food stamps, cutting college aid, etc. I don’t really get why immigration and social spending needs to be conflated, but if that’s the way it is in people’s minds, then cutting social spending might be the best means to persuading the American people to accept more immigration.

            I remain convinced that Democrats are mostly ashamed of their support for illegal immigration. They’d certainly rather abandon immigration than social spending.

            1. I don’t really get why immigration and social spending needs to be conflated

              Oh yes you do.

              It’s because the conflation allows an easy avenue for right-wingers to scapegoat immigrants for the problem of the welfare state.

              1. Idiot.

                The conflation came from the left, as part of their comprehensive plan to buy votes.

                I mean, to show compassion.

            2. Democrats cannot abandon immigration.

              If the Democratic Party is losing “x” amount of voters every month and gaining less voters each month, its just a matter of time that they Democratic Party is powerless.

              The Democrats need to supplement their domestic voter increases with immigrant (illegal and legal immigrants) voters to remain viable.

              1. “If the Democratic Party is losing “x” amount of voters every month and gaining less voters each month,”

                Your citation fell off….again.

  17. Fortunately Pelosi rejected the deal 30 minutes before Trump delivered it.

    Not in good faith?

    You decide.

    1. Yeah, whatever else we read into this, it’s also clear that Pelosi doesn’t care if the dreamers get deported–not as much as she cares about keeping Trump from notching a win.

      I wish this impasse really were about immigration, but it seems to be more about 2020.

      Dalmia’s idea that the Democrats are even negotiating on immigration is suspect–never mind their good faith.

      1. Shitka knows damn well that anything Trump proposes at this point, short of abolishing the immigration system altogether, will be considered “bad-faith” by Democrats and open-border zealots.

        It’s not that their views on immigration have evolved, so much as they know now that they are the anti-white party and every policy going forward must be geared towards signaling a purge of the supposed sins of their past–whether it be reparations, open borders, lower admission standards for college and graduate students, eliminating English immersion in schools, etc.

  18. Go back to India, Shikha.

  19. My opinion:
    1) walls are a sensible part of border security
    2) the US needs (legal) immigrants for demographic reasons, i.e. social security Medicare/ Medicaid- the boomers are getting expensive
    3) ending birthright citizenship would lead to ghettos of unemployable, permanently second class non- citizens, an unacceptable outcome.
    Also, first.

    1. “My opinion:
      1) walls are a sensible part of border security
      2) the US needs (legal) immigrants for demographic reasons, i.e. social security Medicare/ Medicaid- the boomers are getting expensive
      3) ending birthright citizenship would lead to ghettos of unemployable, permanently second class non- citizens, an unacceptable outcome.
      Also, first.”

      1) I want to propose that free trade means moving those who want to sell their skills should be allowed to do so. And I’m not convinced that walls will do what you hope; George Patton had strong opinions regarding fixed defenses and he was right.
      2) Yep, us old farts are costing money, but I’d suggest the way to solve that is cutting the damn subsidies. For pete’s sake, we’re the ones who can afford it most. Not griping that we should welcome the ambitious, but not for that reason. I’ll be happy to pay for what I want.
      3) Dunno. Care to explain your reasoning?
      And 10th, or something around there…

      1. Who, 10th got bumped WAAAAY down!

        Your opinion sounds reasonably reasonable, not like the haters of illegal sub-humans who post here way too often…

        From the article…

        “But the amount of money involved is not even a drop in a $4 trillion budget …” (money for the wall).

        So my humble opinion is, drop another 5.7 billion my way while you’re at it! That, too, is a drop in the bucket!

  20. There are about the same number of DACA kids as furloughed fed workers (800k). Hmmm…….

    Maybe the DACA kids could get together and offer support for the furloughed workers. Then they wouldn’t seem like ingrates.

  21. I feel like we don’t acknowledge enough that Donald Trump is a goddamn insane person.

    1. The North Korea summit?

      The best economy for minorities – maybe evah.

      I like that kind of insane.

      1. Yeah, it’s sane people who can only get along with weirdo dictators and nobody else including their own children.

        1. You say the stupidest shit Tony. Now go drink your Drano.

    2. Poor Tony.

      He actually believes that reducing government and fighting Lefties means that you are insane.

      If that’s insanity, give me more please.

  22. Yes, it is a negotiation tactic, designed to get the Democrats to the negotiation table. You cannot negotiate alone. The Democrats don’t have to accept that deal, they do need to come to the table. If they don’t, yes they get the blame for the shutdown. The Democrats rhetoric is their concern for the poor. If they were truly concerned for the poor and hurting, they would be negotiating.

  23. Shikha’s grokking of US culture would improve by perusal of Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land.” It’s hard to convey how few Americans are committed to our becoming Lebensraum for a billion or so Indian/Paki Mohammedans and Hindus. I’d wager there is a larger American constituency in favor of shipping the Senate, Dixiecrats and the entire Moral Majority Antichoice over to India.

    1. Only if we can also ship the House, the Greens, and all of coastal California.

  24. I stopped reading at “Shikha Dalmia”

    Step 1) Deport all illegal aliens (incl. DACA).
    Step 2) Hand out immigration applications.
    Step 3) Get in line.

    1. Step 4) Assimilate (learn English)

    2. +100

    3. Step 4) According to the Rule of The Donald: Wait 30 years, or until you die, whichever comes LAST, and THEN you may come here! Unless you are a good-looking, humpable model or porn star, and The Donald lusts after you, in which case the wait time is 30 minutes or less, guaranteed.

      1. Dumbass, hot chicks always go to the front of the line. That’s true pretty much everywhere.

    4. Step 3) Get in line.

      You do realize that “the line”, for certain classes of immigrants, can be as much of a wait as 20 years. Do you think at all that this process ought to be reformed?

      1. Sure. Get the votes. Pass the law. Seems pretty simple to me

        1. That’s what they said when women wanted to vote. And when blacks wanted to sit in the front of the bus. And when gay folks wanted to get married. And it is what I am saying when I want to blow on a cheap plastic flute, w/o special permission!

          To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ ? This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

          1. Sarsour, you’re falsely comparing disenfranchised citizens to the demands of foreigners who are not entitled to be here.

        2. What type of reform would you support in order to streamline the legal immigration process?

          1. Improve and modernize computer systems, reduce bureaucratic redundancy, possibly offer more fast track options, like we do with non citizens who are eligible to en,isn’t in the military. Introduce more focused programs for professions on shortage, like allowing foreign doctors to come and work for a number of years here at places like the VA.

            That’s just to name a few, Rudy Giuliani had a lot to say on the subject a few years ago that made sense. His main premise is that we need to find ways to give tools to the govt. workers who process this stuff that make their jobs easier and faster.

            1. Oh I see. So bureaucratic tweaks that don’t really do anything of any substance to affect the huge waiting list of people wanting to come into the country. Basically, nothing. As I figured.

              1. Jeff, you ask for a solution and when presented with one declare it “nothing” if it’s not full capitulation to your zealotry.
                Fuck off, slaver

                1. The only reason why there is an illegal immigration problem in the first place is because of the overly restrictive immigration quotas. They are so restrictive that it can take upwards of 20 years for an applicant to even get an interview for permanent residency. Would *you* wait 20 years for just the chance at a better life? Probably not.

                  Make legal immigration far easier and there will be less illegal immigration. The quotas and caps should at a minimum be doubled.

                  1. Many of us think 1m+ legal immigrants per year is plenty.
                    Why should we double that number?
                    The reason we have an illegal immigration problem is because we have the world’s biggest economy, easy access to welfare (lawfully and unlawfully), lax border security, and extremely forgiving/inconsistent enforcement of violations.
                    Yes, renouncing all immigration laws would solve the problem of illegal immigration the same way that renouncing all homicide laws would solve the problem of murder.

  25. It appears the President’s mother, Ann Coulter, has already said no to this deal. Maybe the way to address this is to get the middle men, Trump and McConnell, out of the way and just have Speaker Pelosi talk directly to Ann Coulter.

    1. OMG heaven forbid she has an opinion. The horror

      1. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, etc., had opinions too. Had no one listened to their opinions, and took actions based on them, there wouldn’t have been “issues”, as there were. Said to say, that was not the case. Horrors DID result. We ignore these facts at our peril!

        1. You’re an idiot and have nothing to contribute

          1. Thanks for all your carefully thought-out contributions; they are indeed thought-provoking and deep!

            I never realized that I was an idiot; you have now changed my life for the better, in SOOOO many ways!!!

            THANK YOU!!!!

            1. Well sqrlsy, knowing IS half the battle.

          2. “You’re an idiot and have nothing to contribute”

            The contribution was a straw man argument.

            1. For some unknown reason, the kind of people who get their bowels in an uproar of spewed hatred towards illegal sub-humans, can never find time to address this following argument (Maybe it is too complex for them to “grok”):

              The collective hive mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that The Collective Hive created, The Collective Hive gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, The Collective Hive now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies? And now also property confiscations for wall-building? So I suppose The Collective Hive will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).

              When will we stop the perpetual cycle of Government Almighty always getting bigger, to fix the LAST batch of problems created by excessive Government Almighty?

              1. I agree with you. And I get the sarcasm, but sadly, many won’t. I am not sure if many of the commenters get that this is a Libertarian themed site. And that’s right on the home page.

  26. You have to go back.

  27. Of course it isn’t a ‘good faith’ proposal. Making good faith proposals to the Democrats is a losing proposition; they always, Always, ALWAYS ditch their end the moment it becomes politically expedient. One reason the Democrat Establishment hates Trump so much is that they can’t play the usual games with him; he’s as manipulative as they are.

    I expect Trump believes that the Democrats will reject the proposal, and made it to make them look obstructionist (which, heaven knows, they are).

    I didn’t vote for Trump because I thought he would be a good President. I voted for Trump because the thought of him in the White House was slightly less nauseating than the thought of Her Shrillness, and I knew damned well he would be infinitely more entertaining. Nothing that has happened since has made me alter my opinion.

    1. Cool. I love it when people talk about their 2016 Presidential choice, and believe it is what all this political fencing is about anyhow. I voted for her Shrillness because I found Trump more repellent. This is just sad. We had a choice of Scylla or Charybdis. I should have voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, but didn’t want to “throw my vote away” which is ridiculous because I live in California. This shutdown just demonstrates how the government has too much power. They mandate that air traffic controllers and airport security and Coast Guard have to work, bu won’t get paid till the sides agree? Bullshit. That is just plain wrong. They explain why it is OK, and we blame one side or the other without noticing that the entire system is wacked. I gotta admit, the 2016 election was an eye opener for me. We shouldn’t vote and then feel dirty later because our choices were so shitty.

  28. President Donald Trump has presented a proposal to end the government shutdown?now in its 29th day?that is typical Trump:

    Trump knows that they Democrats wont budge for the border fence right now.

    Which is great because starting Monday, furloughs will become permanent layoffs. After 30 days of furlough, government agencies can submit plans for eliminating positions without interference from bureaucrats and government unions. Trump has been unable to get Congress to drain the swamp much, if at all. This 30 day+ shutdown will allow Trump to drain the swamp.

    Trump will be able to get Lefty bureaucrats out of government by the tens of thousands. These people tended to donate to the Democratic Party. These people will have less money to donate to politicians and they will need to find civilians jobs.

    Lefties dont even see the magnitude of this coming their way.

    1. If this is true (and even if it is somewhat true, I expect there are complicatins galore) the schweaming will be EPIC.

      I’m buying earplugs.

    2. That is not true. Mass layoffs will not follow. These are emergency furloughs, and work differently so they can’t do a RIF. Snopes did an article about it. I get that you want to see the government trimmed in size, and I am all for that. But this shutdown will result in more government spending not less. Logistical messes are piling up. Some actual work that does need doing is getting backburnered. People doing necessary work, like air traffic controllers, aren’t getting paid. And when this is all done, all the federal employees will get back pay anyhow. This kind of fight just highlights how incompetent the government is. Other countries have political fights that don’t result in this kind of mess. Heck, Sweden just formed a government after over 100 days of political fighting. But they didn’t have to close their airports. If this lasts much longer, we will have reduced air traffic, and airport closures, which is bad for everyone. However, I predict that this will blow over in a couple weeks with both sides crowing that they “won”.

    3. You’re buying into idiot Qanon gibberish.

      Which isn’t surprising. There aren’t many intelligent Trump supporters.

  29. And this isn’t a good faith article

  30. I notice this article uses the term “TPS” but never defines it. That’s because it expands to “temporary protected status”. It isn’t supposed to be permanent, and it’s absurd to think that Trump is offering a bad deal because he’s just extending this temporary status for three years.

  31. So which is preferred; a ‘bad faith’ offer, or refusal to even show up to negotiate?
    An offer is an offer. Accept it, offer a different proposal, whatever, but at least pretend to give a damn and show up.

    1. The party with the stronger position generally doesn’t need to be proposing counter-offers.

      1. That’s a remarkably stupid comment, even for you.

        1. Democrats have the stronger position here. All they have to do is wait for Trump to feel the heat from the growing number of people affected by the shutdown.

      2. Jeffy, adults negotiating is a very complex and complicated thing for a little tyke like you to understand.

        1. Fuck off, shithead.

  32. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here……………. http://www.Mesalary.com

  33. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come……….. http://www.Mesalary.com

  34. It should be noted that the longer the federales are shutdown the more this starts to be a libertarian project

    1. Fun isn’t it? And it is not just the shutdown itself. It is the Democrats and Republicans running around like a clown show not knowing how to stop the mess they created.

      Operation Snowball!

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ebbckGSSGGg

  35. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here….. http://www.mesalary.com

  36. “he also scrapped the TPS status of nationals from El Salvador, Haiti and Nicaragua, setting up about 98 percent of current TPS recipients for deportation if they didn’t voluntarily leave by the end of this year. ”

    Um, what does the “T” in “TPS” stand for, again?

    1. Temporary means AT LEAST 200 years… If they happen to die long before then, and spawn numerous children that are US citizens in between… Well then we’re magically enriched somehow! Everybody knows that low skilled immigrants who don’t assimilate somehow make the country richer and better off!

  37. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  38. Trump’s a lying sack of shit who reneged on an agreement to sign a CR without wall funding.

    The Democrats shouldn’t negotiate until he makes a real offer, and then they should force him to give up a lot more than just deals for Dreamers and TPS.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.