Trump’s immigration bill proposal
It’s big news, but I haven’t yet written on it.
Why? Because I think it’s just the opening scene in a play that will be revised several times.
Actually, that’s a bad metaphor. It’s not the opening scene; the play has come out in various versions for over a decade (at least, that’s the history I’ll focus on here; it’s actually a much more long-standing issue), as Congress considers a comprehensive immigration bill.
Remember the effort made during George W. Bush’s administration? If you don’t, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane:
The [2007] bill was a compromise based largely on three previous failed immigration reform bills:
—The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), a bill proposed in May 2005 by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, sometimes referred to as the “McCain-Kennedy or McKennedy Bill.”
—The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), a bill proposed in July 2005 by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl, sometimes referred to as the “Cornyn-Kyl Bill.”
—The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter, which was passed in the Senate in May 2006 but never passed in the House.The bill’s sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men’s names, most commonly “Kennedy-Kyl”. A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the ‘Gang of 12’. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana led the opposition to the bill, clashing with McCain and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
The bill never passed, and drew a lot of anger. You can read its suggested provisions here. To go into the details would take a much longer post than I plan to write, but the gist of it was that it established a path to citizenship for every single illegal immigrant then currently residing in the country, although there were certain hoops to jump through. There also were some security provisions:
The bill would have increased enforcement of the United States-Mexico border, including increasing the number of border patrol agents by 20,000 and adding another 370 miles (600 km) of fencing, among others.
And then there was the case of the Gang of Eight in 2013:
…[T]he immigration bill passed the Senate with a strong majority””68”“32, with 14 Republicans joining all Democrats. The United States House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner did not act on the bill, however, and it expired at the end of the 113th Congress.
You can read the proposals in the bill here. Once again, it provided a long-term path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already residing here (there were many many more changes, but again they’re too numerous to detail). It also purported to increase security (someday):
The bill contains many border security measures, some of which must be implemented before illegal immigrants can adjust from the provisional status to full green card status. However, the DHS Secretary simply must submit a plan for border security within the first six months of the bill in order to initiate the provisional legal status for illegal immigrants. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained that whether or not the border is secure will have no impact on the advancement of the legalization of illegal immigrants, saying, “We’re not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship. [The Gang of Eight] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship.”
Those who criticize Boehner as spineless and unconservative probably forget that he was the person who stopped this bill, which had already passed the Senate. His stated reason:
In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don’t trust him to enforce the law as written. Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue.
Obama responded through executive orders in order to circumvent Congress.
Now, take a look at the current proposals under Trump. The emphasis is on security. The visa lottery is eliminated and family chain immigration tightened up somewhat (the latter was done in some of the previous bills, as well). A path to citizenship is provided only for people eligible for DACA.
This is pretty much what one might have predicted of Trump, since (if you were paying attention) he was always waffly on DACA. And the Democrats have done what you might expect. Nancy Pelosi considers it racist, naturally. The basic Democratic response can be summed up this way:
“Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who has fought for protection for participants in the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, said in a statement.
Of course. Trump should just give Dreamers what the Democrats want without asking for anything in exchange, right? I’m sure if the Democrats were in power, they’d have returned the favor by starting with the wall and waiting patiently for the rest.
I wonder whether Trump made this proposal knowing the Democrats would balk. I doubt he’ll make it more amenable to them in response. He might make it less. The problem may be, as with all the other immigration bills, it will be hard to get enough votes to pass it because it is almost impossible to please enough people with any bill. Most of the opinions expressed by the GOP have been supportive, but some Republicans are unhappy with it as well, and the GOP holds only a very small margin in the Senate.
So, what else is new?
Three truths: the democrat party’s future rests firmly in the continuence of immigration’s status quo.
The GOPe is demanding a continuation of cheap labor, as a precondition for their votes. On this issue, the GOPe’s big donors are on the dem’s side,
Any legislation that actually allows illegal immigration to continue at massive levels will result in the abandonment by a large portion of the GOP’s base of both the GOP and the base’s support for Trump. Betrayal will not be ignored or accepted.
Since neither the dems nor the GOPe will vote for actual measures that greatly reduce illegal immigration, Trump’s best move is to start deporting every illegal in America (starting with the activist ‘dreamers’) and utterly ignore the dems and RINO naysayers. As President, Trump CAN enforce the laws and ANYONE who physically resists that enforcement is criminally liable.
“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
We are in a fight to the death for America’s soul. Whether we acknowledge it or not.
It is literally suicidal to allow the current situation to continue.
They all have to go back.
Here is Legal Insurrections’s link to the proposal.
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/White-House-Framework-on-Immigration.pdf
It might be the best we can get and look at this part:
DACA LEGALIZATION: Provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals.-10-12 year path to citizenship, with requirements for work, education and good moral character.-Clear eligibility requirements to mitigate fraud.-Status is subject to revocation for criminal conduct or public safety and national security concerns, public charge, fraud, etc.
The key is the 10-12 year path and the criminals do not get to participate in the path.
–I dunno. Just seemed appropriate, somehow.
It seems to me that the critical issues are:
Q1. After legalization, how long will a former-illegal have to wait before they become eligible for naturalization? Is it a longer, or a shorter wait, than that for a legal entry (visa)?
A1. From what I’ve been reading, it’s around 12 years, which is the same or slightly longer than a legal entry. Justice-wise, that’s correct: One ought not to benefit from having broken the law.
…
Q2. During that waiting period, how strictly will the “good character, good conduct” requirements be enforced?
A2. Under Trump, the answer is apparently “quite strictly”: So much as a parking ticket, and these provisionally-legalized folks can be deported. That’s tough, but beneficial: If 1.8 million get legalized, the number that actually stay will be much smaller, consisting only of the most-upstanding and responsible subset.
…
Q3. After the freshly-legalized persons begin their waiting-period towards naturalization, what prevents future administrations from halting enforcement of the “good conduct/good character” requirements, such that criminals in the program end up staying and naturalizing after all?
A3. Aye, there’s the rub: The answer seems to be “nothing.”
…
Q4. When does airtight border security begin?
A4. Another problem. Looks like the answer is: Ten years from the granting of legal status to the 1.8 million. Which means it wouldn’t happen until well after Trump’s second term, assuming he gets one, which isn’t a sure thing. And that means it wouldn’t ever happen, because historical patterns suggest a Democrat would most likely be in office at that time.
…
Q5. After the border becomes airtight, what prevents future pro-illegal-immigration administrations from defunding border security and opening up the floodgates again?
A5. Yet another problem. What prevents future administrations reneging on the deal? Nothing, so far as I can tell.
…
At present, therefore, the deal sounds bad, inasmuch as its drawbacks are robust and its benefits are fragile. Whether it’s worse than the status quo, I can’t say.
However, if all the above issues could be dealt with, such that…
(a.) Airtight border happens immediately and becomes the new normal;
(b.) System design makes it very difficult for future administrations to undermine the enforcement of strict border security; and,
(c.) System design makes it very difficult to not enforce the “good character/good conduct” requirements strictly;
…then of course it’d be a very good outcome.
Yes, all illegal aliens have to go back. And we don’t need a complete wall across the border, just enough walls to funnel the invasion into kill zones, yes, kill zones. Shoot a few thousands first year, shoot a few hundreds the second year, shoot 10 or 20 the 3 3rd year, shoot 1 or 2 every year after. Invasions can only be stopped by bullets. Truth is not pretty or kind.
Went over to ChicagoBoyz today and they had a good post up on the immigration bill; comments are worth reading, especially from some with business experiences.
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/56732.html
I personally dont have any favorable opinion on any form of charity especially government charities as they are mostly scamming schemes that every 100 dollar you give only at most 10 dollar end up for the people you intended to help. 90% of it ends up as executive fees or in corrupted politicians’ pockets. The more compassionate a politician speaks usually the more corrupted this person is, only under 25 liberals with zero common sense still judge a person by their sound bites. Liberals over 25 are the beneficiaries of these charities as they are mostly part of the machine so of course they speak favourable of them to keep their gravy train running.
Strictly ENFORCE all of the laws as written.
If Congress does not want a law enforced, then it is up to Congress to pass a bill REPEALING that law.
It is that simple.
Trump’s is actually a good opening salvo, IMHO. The DACA crowd (“Dreamers” is a revolting Obamaesque appellation) is maybe 2 million +/-, more acculturated than their illegally-present parents who brought them. IF all with clean criminal records who were provably juveniles are allowed to stay, jump thru hoops (e.g. 6 months in a CCC-style camp doing public works) to prove their devotion to America (No more Cinco de Mayo unless mayonnaise is meant!), that is reasonable IF the border is secured, IF visa overstays are hounded, IF chain migration (enabled by the esteemed Congress and thus the law of the land) is ended forthwith.
Their parents, of course, have to go back whence they illegally came. Taking some DACAs with them, naturally.
Trump math:
1.8 million potentials (to sell the deal)
minus the criminals and those unwilling to go through the process = 1.4 million
Equals the dirty secret that only 400,000 might actually be eligible in 12 years after having gone through the process.
However, the issue is future Congresses will have “sympathy” and change the rules.
Trump has reshuffled the deck. Prior to Trump, a workable compromise after eliminating chain migration and the lottery would consist of legal status without a pathway to citizenship (and the vote). The Democrats want the political dominance that will come from citizenship for somewhere between 11 and 30 million illegal immigrants. Those illegals who haven’t committed a crime would get to stay.
In principle in the DACA case it’s important to remove the option for the parents who brought the kids here to obtain any legal status from their children.
Trump’s proposal or opening negotiating position is remarkable. One powerful weapon the left has had is the emotional impact of the kids brought here when so young. Who could be against giving them legal status? Trump has shifted the emotional burden from the Republicans (and Trump) to the Democrats by outlining the need to fix a few modest problems (chain and lottery) and stating repeatedly he intends to sign a bill legalizing those DACA kids (and the Dreamers for good measure). The DACA kids and the Dreamers don’t really care about those other parts. They hear Trump say he’ll sign the bill and want to know why Schumer and Democrats don’t immediately take the deal. Those kids also know that when the Democrats had the power in 2008 they did not move on this (they wanted the issue to use against Republicans).
Trump’s position is strong. Come March he will accelerate the deportations. When he is accused he can truthfully say he’s just enforcing the law – his hands are tied. Trump loses a lot of his support if he signs anything but a strong fix to immigration. If the Democrats don’t want to come to the table Trump’s position only gets stronger as November approaches.
Trump has driven a deep wedge among the Democrats as he as strengthened his position among conservatives.
And Trump’s proposal is in fact a strong one. Those being considered are a small portion of the total illegals here, but it sets a good precedent for future negotiations. It will take 10-12 years before they get the vote. Takes the issue off the table going forward. Chain migration is fixed. A skills based system gets a good start. And we get rid of the lottery system – Ted K’s little gift to Ireland.
Parker:
If death by misadventure doesn’t stop them, do you think actual kill zones would either?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/30/texas-san-antonio-migrants-truck-deaths
Thirty-five years ago we visited Douglas, Arizona for my brother-in-laws eldest son’s HS graduation. They were living a few miles north in Elfrida on State 191 where the brother-in-law was working for the FAA as a site maintenance guy. The valley west of Elfrida was a funnel for illegals heading north. They locked everything down at night and being ex-military he was well armed. Thousands crossed the fences – thirty-five years ago. Here is the same border today, same fences. The 3rd row down is the lobby of the Gadsden Hotel where we stayed. It was worth the trip to stay there. I doubt much has changed in 35 years, neither the Hotel nor the useless fences:
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/douglas—arizona?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=douglas%20-%20arizona
You have to prove your loyalty to the USA, otherwise FDR will put you in a concentration camp and nullify your American citizenship.
Not that you proving anything will matter to the Deep State either way.
Ymar, if you had been in FDR’s wheelchair you would have done the same thing.
If you look at the pictures I linked above of the border fences near Douglas, Arizona, you may notice a B&W one with a smiling woman being carried by some well dressed men. That would be Aimee Semple McPherson who came out of the Sonora Desert at Agua Prieta, Mexico after disappearing into the Pacific Ocean at Venice Beach, California.
Agua Prieta is separated from Douglas by a fence. Thirty-five years ago it was a sleepy border town with mostly dirt streets and a population of maybe 25,000. It’s now a bustling little city of 80,000 thanks to the Maquiladora factories we’ve built there.
For those interested in the history of the Four Square Church, and a wild tale of sin, abduction, impenetrable borders, and how a faith healer made a believer of H.L. Menken, here is Aimee’s saga:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_kidnapping_of_Aimee_Semple_McPherson
Otiose Says:
January 29th, 2018 at 8:16 pm
Ymar, if you had been in FDR’s wheelchair you would have done the same thing.
No, I would not have. I would already know where the Japanese and German spies are, because of FBI and Hoover’s pre COINTELPRO network. The Japanese code had already been cracked, their spies exposed, before Pearl.
The Japanese descendants with American citizenship, were in concentration camps so the USA, maybe your ancestors, could feel better about FDR’s betrayal of his “no war in Europe” promise. Tell the State which of your neighbors are Asian looking and they will be rounded up and the property sold at below market rates to the “neighborhood” and carpet baggers from the South. Lets the good volk feel they are doing a patriotic service in a time of war.
Then again, the Deep State rules, and the USA people only think they rule.
In the sight of more than two witnesses, I hereby pronounce as my testimony, that the United States of America is no longer under divine contract with Jehovah/Yehovah/Yeshua of Nazareth/Jesus the Nazarene/the Christ/the Messiah/the Savior on account of severe and irrevocable contractual failures.