Tal reports:
WASHINGTON — A perennial trial balloon is once more floating on the horizon: Could protecting young undocumented immigrants from deportation in exchange for border security money get Washington out of a lengthy government shutdown?
The idea is already rapidly falling back to Earth.
President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, have both brushed aside suggestions that passing protections like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program could be a way out of the shutdown, which is nearing the end of its third week with no hint of a resolution.
- Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢
- Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle
DACA temporarily protects many undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. under the age of 16 from being deported. Trump, whose attempt to end DACA is tied up in the courts, said Sunday that he would “rather have the Supreme Court rule and then work with the Democrats” on extending protections for program recipients.
“They’re two different subjects,” Pelosi said last month when asked about trading DACA for Trump’s southern border wall — $5.7 billion for which he is demanding before he will sign any government funding bills for the agencies that have been shut down.
Democrats are not universally against the idea. San Mateo Rep. Jackie Speier told MSNBC last week that she “personally would support it” and “there is a willingness to look” at a DACA-for-wall money deal in the caucus. DACA protections for nearly 700,000 immigrants nationwide, 200,000 of whom are in California, are in limbo, and hundreds of thousands more would be eligible for the program.
But numerous other Democrats — including several on the influential Hispanic, Asian Pacific and black caucuses that have leadership’s ear on immigration — said a DACA deal involving wall money is a nonstarter in shutdown negotiations without serious and uncharacteristic overtures from Trump.
Here’s why it’s unlikely:
Trump thinks time, and the Supreme Court, are on his side. The White House believes the court will ultimately invalidate the Obama-era DACA program or side with Trump’s attempt to end it, which has been blocked by lower courts. When that happens, the administration believes, Trump will have more leverage to cut a better deal with Democrats desperate to keep sympathetic young DACA recipients from being deported, and Congress will be forced to deal with a dilemma it has long avoided.
Democrats don’t trust Trump, who has walked away from a number of DACA proposals in the past year. “Donald Trump is not a deal-maker, he’s a deal-breaker,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz. “We’ve seen this happen numerous times, and we’re not going to come approach him with a deal that he’s only going to take and then reject and then come back and move the goalposts on.”
Pelosi is in touch with her base, and her base isn’t eager to broach that deal. “People don’t want to trade a wall for something that isn’t even real,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “People don’t want a wall, period, and I think there’s no trust that there’s any credible negotiation around something positive on immigration, given (Trump’s) history.”
Trump wants much more on immigration than just physical border security, where there are some areas of potential compromise. A presentation that Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen prepared for congressional leaders last week included calls not just for the wall, but the rollback of a bipartisan bill designed to protect human trafficking victims and a court-ordered settlement intended to safeguard immigrant children. Both of those are nonstarters with Democrats, who say the protections are needed and getting rid of them does not promote border security.
Republicans question whether Democrats are as motivated as they say they are to resolve the DACA issue. They’re skeptical Democrats want to take the political leverage off the table. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, a moderate Republican who has long worked on immigration reform, called the potential to get a deal out of the shutdown fight the “opportunity of a lifetime.”
“It requires the Democratic leadership to actually do something that they have not done in the past,” Diaz-Balart said, “which is match their rhetoric on DACA with actual action.”
Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan
************************************************
HERE’S YOUR “BONUS COVERAGE” ESSAY FROM “COURTSIDE:”
LET’S GOVERN!
By
Paul Wickham Schmidt
United States Immigration Judge (Retired)
I still think the best deal for America would be some form of “Wall for Dreamers” compromise. To me, the huge downside of “The Wall” would be more than offset by getting 800,000 great American young people — literally the future of our country – out of the shadows and contributing their maximum skills, talents, and creativity to making America really great (not the hollow mockery of “greatness’ peddled by Trump and his base).
But, Tal’s usually got her head “closer to the ground” than I do these days from my retirement perch in Alexandria. So, I’ll assume for the purposes of this piece that Tal is correct and that the “great compromise” isn’t in the cards – at least at this time.
So, where does we go from here? This is crystal clear: Trump can neither govern in America’s best interest nor can he cut any reasonable deal. So, it seems like the only alternative for America is for the Democrats in Congress to get together with the GOP and develop a plan for governing in the absence of a competent Executive. That means passage of “veto-proof” legislation that also places some specific limits and directions on Executive actions.
What could a “veto proof” compromise to reopen Government look like. Well, of course, to start it must fund the affected Government agencies through the end of the fiscal year.
But, it also could include a robust $5.9 Million “Border Security” package. Here’s what could be included:
- Additional Asylum Officers;
- Additional port of entry inspectors;
- Additional Immigration Judges and court staff;
- Additional funding for Office of Refugee Resettlement for health and safety of children;
- Required e-filing and other management improvements at EOIR (including elimination of counterproductive “quotas” on judges, and providing at least one judicial law clerk for each judge);
- Additional Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE;
- Funding for counsel for asylum applicants and resettlement agencies;
- Additional Anti-Smuggling, Intelligence, and Undercover Agents for DHS;
- Smart Technology for and between ports of entry at the border and the interior;
- Required improvements in management planning, hiring, and supervision within DHS;
- Limitations on wasteful immigration detention (including a prohibition on long-term detention of children except in limited circumstances) and reprogramming of detention funds to alternatives to detention;
- Funding for additional border fencing or fencing repairs in specific areas with an express prohibition on additional physical barriers without a specific appropriation from Congress.
- Assistance to Mexico, the UNHCR, and other countries in the hemisphere to improve refugee processing and address problems in the Northern Triangle;
Sure, Trump could, and maybe would, veto it – although he’d be wise not to. And, I suppose, that veto, which would be overridden, could be the “red meat” for his base that he apparently favors over the “art of governing.”
But, in the meantime, Congress would fulfill its important role of governing in a bipartisan manner that will keep America moving forward even in the times of a weak and incompetent Executive. And, unlike the bogus “Wall,” the foregoing measures would actually contribute to our country’s security and welfare without wasting taxpayers’ money or trampling on individual rights and legal obligations. In other words, “smart governance.” That seems like a fair and worthy objective for both parties in Congress.
PWS
01-09-19