The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
President Donald Trump sees tactical advantage in extending his dispute with Congress over funding his “wall.” Most of the country would be grateful if he and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives came to terms and let the government get back to doing its job.
A deal of the kind recently floated by Sen. Lindsey Graham ought to be possible: Allow the administration additional funding for border security while extending protections for so-called Dreamers (young people brought illegally to the U.S. as children) as well as for several hundred thousand holders of temporary protected status. This would afford both sides a partial win. . . .
Washington should strike a deal on Dreamers and border security. If Trump calls it a win, fine. Voters won’t be fooled, and $5 billion or so for a wall that doesn’t work and isn’t even a wall would be a price worth paying for securing the Dreamers’ future and letting the government at least turn up for work. – Editorial: Strike a Deal on Trump’s Wall, The Columbus Dispatch, 1/6/19 [Link]
Fact Check of Quote: This proposed deal is truly a bad deal for anyone wanting genuine immigration reform. A wall, at least in some strategic areas, can be a useful tool against illegal immigration. But President Trump is mistaken if he believes that is the most important step necessary to curtail illegal immigration. One reason is that as many as half of illegal aliens did not illegally cross the border to get here. They come on legal temporary visas and then overstay those visas. Just as important or more important than walls is a tracking system to make sure that temporary visitors go home.
Also crucial are steps to prevent illegal aliens from taking jobs once they are here. Lacking chances for employment, Illegal aliens are less likely to come, or remain if they are already here. A key to this objective is mandatory use of the E-Verify system, which enables employers to do a quick check on the legal status of the people they hire. Curbing illegal immigration, furthermore, will require increased cooperation between ICE and non-federal law enforcement agencies.
Wall building is not a big enough concession to justify amnesty for as many as 1.8 million illegal aliens in the Dreamer category. And adding on hundreds of thousands of temporary protected status (TPS) people is an even worse deal.
Some kind of agreement might be possible which grants amnesty to the 800,000 Dreamers who have actually applied for legal residence. Not willingly breaking our laws mitigates their offence. But all TPS people whose justification for residence has expired should go home.
For a limited DACA amnesty, it would be reasonable for immigration advocates to concede a wall, an effective entry/exit tracking system and mandatory E-Verify. Another proper concession would be a reduction of legal immigration categories, such as the provision allowing immigrants to petition for their parents to have permanent residence. With this provision in place DACA recipients of amnesty could petition for their parents—the people who did choose to beak our immigration laws.
These steps would do much to stop illegal immigration. Would immigration advocates be willing to accept it? It depends on whether they really want to stop it.