Trump’s plan to deal with Dreamers will disappoint some, but makes political sense
We heard it a lot during the recently concluded campaign season, namely that the election
of Donald J. Trump to make a triumphant return to the presidency he was ejected from in 2020 (legitimate or not) would bring about earthshattering changes to the way the nation enforces its immigration laws.
The majority of Americans appeared to agree they wanted the nation’s policy to be radically different than under the auspices of inept Democrats senile Joe Biden and cackling Kamala Harris, two political “leaders” who, through incompetence or sinister ill-will all-but threw open the doors to wave upon wave of foreign invaders, many of whom crossed the border with impunity and disregard for the wishes of Americans of all nationalities and places of origin.
Meanwhile, the wholesale switch of millions of Hispanic voters from loyal Democrat to enlightened Republican in 2024 demonstrated that, broadly speaking, people with Spanish accents and tan skin value law enforcement and job opportunities over identity politics the same way most everyone else does.
At the same time, many conservatives are not under the illusion that Trump’s election would mean every single human being here without legal sanction would be kicked across the border without fail. To claim blanket deportation was the ultimate aim would be wishful thinking at best and defy reality at worst. Just like with liberals and Democrats who swear every alien should be permitted to remain here because of “humanitarian” reasons, it just wouldn’t be practical – or possible – to round ‘em all up and ship them southward. Or eastward, westward or to the north, either. Wherever they came from.
The president-elect himself has even opened the door to letting some of the status-less people stay in the United States. Is Trump’s post-election restatement of position a reversal of his prior promises? In an article titled, “Trump says he’s open to amnesty for Dreamers; criminals at top of deportation list”, Stephen Dinan and Mallory Wilson reported at The Washington Times the other day:
“President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday revived the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrant ‘Dreamers,’ saying the time has come to offer them more permanent protections in the U.S. Mr. Trump also said he is serious about a significant deportation effort that will initially target ‘criminals.’ In mixed families with someone in the country illegally, those with legal status must decide whether to join their deported relatives.
“In an interview with NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press,’ Mr. Trump said he will attempt to end birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil, including children of illegal immigrants. ‘Well, we’re going to have to get it changed,’ he said.
“He said the enforcement promises are first. Later, he will try to strike a deal granting leniency to Dreamers, or illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and are considered the most sympathetic cases.”
Sympathetic, yes, beyond objection, no. Illegal still means “not legal” and there are many, many forthright American citizens who favor a strict interpretation of the statute books and advocate for devising a very big aircraft or ship or train or walking trail and instructing the “Dreamers” to make a beeline back from which they originally came, even if they were carried here in the arms of their parents.
In this sense, excepting for “Dreamers” is somewhat akin to ardent pro-lifers making allowance for the so-called “three exceptions” for abortion in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at stake.
Purists would disagree. But public policy is rarely cut and dried on any issue and it certainly wouldn’t be a winner politically to remain stoic over every smidgen of a campaign offer. It’s possible to provide an overview of a policy without breaking down the details of each one. I doubt there was anyone in MAGA America who expected Trump to deport every one of the border crossers who’s in the country today. To do so would be a practical impossibility as well as tremendously costly. Common sense indicates that devoting resources to jettisoning law-abiding, productive people wouldn’t make sense.
Still, these individuals should be denied permanent legal status without the possibility of voting and mandating they “wait in line” with everyone else, but self-deporting isn’t realistic for all of them and there are greater priorities for U.S. government funds as well. Policy is policy. Representatives and senators can settle the differences in details, as they should’ve been doing all along.
But Trump shouldn’t be accused of going soft on the subject for stating what he believes – or, more aptly, clarifying what he meant by his “deport them all” stance during the campaign. People who pay attention to politics know Trump was much better on the topic than Kamala and “Tampon” Tim Walz, both of whom have established squishy-on-amnesty records to examine.
Dreamers aren’t exactly innocent, but it’s not unreasonable for Trump to permit them a form of legal status in exchange for other concessions from the pro-amnesty side. The severest of disagreements will use up the balance of the political capital and not everything is a proverbial “hill to die on”.
If so, there’d be an awful lot of such hills and we’d quickly run out of soldiers willing to make the charge, wouldn’t we?
Trump is setting the parameters of negotiations with Democrats while claiming the moral high ground.
I don’t know who originally said it, but this is an illustration of the suggestion that Trump should be taken seriously, not literally in certain circumstances. Only the staunchest of Trump backers would refuse to concede that the man never exaggerates or puffs up his missives, accomplishments or plans for the future. If this weren’t so, Trump wouldn’t get away with suggesting his economy (during his first term) was the “greatest ever” and there was no illegal immigration at all under his watch.
Most of us close politics watchers knew these assertions were arguable but understood that Trump was simply marketing his political candidacy, something every office-seeker does when attempting to draw attention to their attributes and platform. They all hope to make themselves sound better, don’t they?
In possibly offering a bone to “Dreamers” in the opening stages of negotiations, Trump hopes to bring public opinion to his side. The president-elect is among the best there is in talking a good game, but even he knows he couldn’t win the “deport ‘em all” race, and while solid majorities would support him on separating criminals from the rest and sending them away, he would soon lose the moral high ground by expelling people with no criminal records who’ve resided here unobtrusively for decades.
Trump also could be keeping his goodwill reservoir filled for the “big” battles, which includes making a push for ending birthright citizenship, something Democrats will fight tooth and nail to preserve under the belief that if they can’t win the argument, they’ll simply breed the next generation of Democrats instead of legalizing them.
And while it’s hard to fathom, the dealing with the illegal immigration crisis is only one of the major emphases of the new administration, all of which they’ll work on simultaneously. No doubt Trump’s tax relief ideas will receive much scrutiny. Maintaining the economy is of paramount importance.
Each agenda item is as vital as the next in terms of public opinion. Trump will be walking the proverbial tightrope to deal with establishment media attacks, Democrat jabs and possible defections from his own congressional forces.
Passing along a break to the “Dreamers” is the least Trump could do before it all gets crazy.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz
Comments