DACA provides the impetus to solve immigration issues
When the Trump administration decided two weeks ago to halt DACA (for minor children of illegal immigrants) applications and allow six months for Congress to pass legislation that addresses the issue, a new round of political fighting was unleashed. Utilizing the constitutional process unveiled the sharp divide among Republicans concerning this issue and has shown that the leadership of the establishment are closer to the Democrats than to their electoral base. Donald Trump might still find a way to get immigration off the table as a wedge issue.
The media, ever eager to damage Trump, have tried to expose this divide to create a gulf between the president and his supporters. Minority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have overstated any agreement on this issue. Trump had to publicly disavow any actual agreement. House speaker Paul Ryan went so far as to point out that the president and the two Democrats only had a discussion.
These insiders miss the relationship between the president and his supporters. This is the purpose of his Twitter account.
Rush Limbaugh previously offered a compromise for DACA acceptance. In this idea, the legalization of 800,000 persons (and ultimate citizenship and voting privileges) would be traded for financing necessary in building the Mexican border wall. Others have sought to limit the linkage to family members who would then apply for favored status after success in gaining protections for the DACA candidates. But this misses a grander opportunity for satisfying the Republican and independent bases.
Of the almost 200 nations on Earth, only 30 grant any citizen rights to children born to immigrants having entered the country. In more recent years, this grant has been removed from all European countries. Of the developed nations, this is generally limited to Canada and the USA. While Greece once provided citizenship for such children in the past under socialist government leadership, this has not continued. There are no countries that grant citizenship to children brought illegally.
This grant has a more onerous purpose for the benefit of progressives.
An entire industry has arisen over the years for litigating the rights of aliens. Navigating the confusing immigration process has given many lawyers, paralegals, and interest groups financial purpose and security. Despite this, some on both sides of the political isle have sought to restrict the understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment (which grants citizenship to those born on American soil) to mean those legally in the country. Even former senator Harry Reid argued for restrictions on the birthright citizenship grant for children of illegal aliens during the 1990s.
So what has changed the situation? Democrats have determined that they are likely to secure the votes of these people. Leftists have decided that they need to secure votes from newer coalitions, as they have lost the support of many working-class people. They further think family members would then be given a preference for legality, adding votes. This is probably the aim of Pelosi and Schumer.
Republican supporters of Trump want some fairness in government programs. They cannot understand how our leaders give help to immigrants before Americans of any race or creed. This is a critical issue for many of them.
A solution is to guarantee funding for border security as the compromise for any DACA relief. However, for the conservatives, it is paramount to limit the grant of legality to working and domicile status alone. Citizenship and voting privileges would require participation in the military which presently would give about 1,000 persons an advantage. The rest could have guest worker status without any opportunity for citizenship under this program. They would be required to follow existing rules and procedures for voting rights. The parents who brought them here illegally would have no rights under this law.
Further, under DACA, a person could have two or three misdemeanor violations for eligibility. Under this law, people would be allowed only one minor misdemeanor. This might limit drunk driving, personal violence, theft, and the like. It would provide some fairness for existing citizens.
We would not want to encourage additional illegal migration to secure this benefit. It is dangerous, and some have died in the desert trying to get to jobs in the states. Therefore, the legislation should have a last date certain (present) before passage.
Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue have proposed the RAISE legislation, which would reorient immigration preferences to limit less productive persons and dependent family members. It is time to encourage financially independent and productive immigrants over those who require welfare support. This would help ensure that our culture is not threatened by new arrivals. It would also limit "chain migration," which relates to large numbers of arrivals from the same town or family.
Some say this is racist. If so, another racist nation must be Canada, which provides preference for Asian skilled workers, while USA existing law favors low-skilled Hispanics.
During his first two years in office, Obama enjoyed a super-majority in both houses of Congress. Yet he did not introduce immigration reform legislation. This is likely because some credit for immigration reform would have gone to Senator John McCain, Obama's opponent in the election. Fortunately, Obama wanted the issue and not the solution.
In the end, it appears that a compromise would best take entities from all constituencies, and this would likely ensure its passage and longevity. It is not clear that a consensus exists, as the sniping is already beginning.