Nolan writes:
“A Proposal.
Trump supports the congressional establishment of a temporary DACA program for current DACA participants in return for funding to complete the border fencing that was mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19. The yeas included current Senate party leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Schumer and former Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
DHS only completed 653 miles of the 700-mile mandate, which leaves 47 miles for Trump. This would give him a chance to show that he can erect a “beautiful wall” for a reasonable price — the question is if Democrats will accept that cost.”
**************************************
Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article, which contains much more information on the Dream Act proposal.
I’ve said for some time now that I think 47 miles of additional border wall/fencing for a path to permanent status for the current “Dreamers” would be a good trade off for both parties.
PWS
01-04-18
I didn’t suggest “47 miles of additional border wall/fencing for a path to permanent status.” I said a “temporary DACA program for current DACA participants in return for funding to complete the border fencing that was mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”
The DREAM Act would make legal status available to 3.4 million undocumented aliens….not counting fraudulent applications. That would be the biggest legalization program we have ever had, and there hasn’t been a single hearing or markup on the bill in either House.
I am writing an article now on why that would be outrageously inappropriate. The DREAM Act needs to go through the entire legislative process so hearings and markups can be held.
It is extremely short sighted for the democrats to even suggest passing the DREAM Act out of regular order. They must have forgotten what happened when the eliminated the filibuster for executive appointments by the president. See my article, “Will the filibuster save the Democrats from an onslaught of Republican legislation.”
http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9554-Will-the-filibuster-save-the-Democrats-from-an-onslaught-of-Republican-legislation-By-Nolan-Rappaport
There would be absolutely nothing wrong with offering legalization to 3.4 million undocumented residents. (Assuming that’s the actual number.) It would be good for America. The restrictionists have yet to make any case whatsoever for why we shouldn’t legalize all of our undocumented residents who pass background and criminal checks. They are here and contributing to our country, as I saw almost every day in court.
But, that’s not actually what I said. I said that 47 miles of fence for a road to permanent status for those already in Dreamer status (more like 750,000 to 800,000, not 3.4 million) would be an acceptable deal for both sides, which it would. No more keeping young folks in limbo with indefinite temporary status.
Eventually, the vast majority of Dreamers are going to remain in the US, one way or another. If they aren’t taken care of now, eventually they will be when the political winds shift. It’s only a question of how much unnecessary pain and suffering, and damage to our country’s future, the restrictionists can inflict along the way. That’s why it’s not in the Democrats interest (or indeed the public interest) to combine Dreamer relief with parts of the restrictionist agenda.
As for hearings, you must be kidding! Just like the GOP had for the “biggest tax cut in US history” which probably no GOP legislator (and certainly not Trump) had read in its entirety! The GOP was also ready to repeal Obamacare without hearings. Hearings seem to have gone out of fashion with the GOP.
Best,
P
Paul says, “There would be absolutely nothing wrong with offering legalization to 3.4 million undocumented residents. (Assuming that’s the actual number.) It would be good for America. The restrictionists have yet to make any case whatsoever for why we shouldn’t legalize all of our undocumented residents who pass background and criminal checks. They are here and contributing to our country, as I saw almost every day in court.”
Is it fair to make lawful status available to millions of undocumented aliens when the family members of citizens and LPRs with approved family-based preference visa petitions are in a four-million-person visa waiting line?
Paul says, “But, that’s not actually what I said. I said that 47 miles of fence for a road to permanent status for those already in Dreamer status (more like 750,000 to 800,000, not 3.4 million) would be an acceptable deal for both sides, which it would. No more keeping young folks in limbo with indefinite temporary status.”
Sorry, I must have read your comment too quickly. Who is keeping “keeping young folks in limbo with indefinite temporary status?” They are here in violation of our laws and are subject to deportation if they are arrested by ICE. They should be grateful if they are given a status that makes their presence lawful and provides them with work authorization.
Paul says, “Eventually, the vast majority of Dreamers are going to remain in the US, one way or another. If they aren’t taken care of now, eventually they will be when the political winds shift. It’s only a question of how much unnecessary pain and suffering, and damage to our country’s future, the restrictionists can inflict along the way. That’s why it’s not in the Democrats interest (or indeed the public interest) to combine Dreamer relief with parts of the restrictionist agenda.”
That is the attitude that has made compromise with the republicans impossible for more than 30 years now. What do you mean by eventually? If it hasn’t happened in 30 years, what makes you think it will ever happen?
Paul says, “As for hearings, you must be kidding! Just like the GOP had for the “biggest tax cut in US history” which probably no GOP legislator (and certainly not Trump) had read in its entirety! The GOP was also ready to repeal Obamacare without hearings. Hearings seem to have gone out of fashion with the GOP.”
Paul, I agree that the GOP should have held hearings on its tax bill, but I don’t see how that is a response to my claim that the DREAM Act should go through the legislative process. You seem to be unwilling to accept the way immigration laws are passed in a democracy, and you seem to want to stop enforcement until there is a congress that passes the kinds of laws that you want. I don’t know of any government that works that way.