7 ms·

If you watched the state of the union, you know that Trump made a proposal about DACA that was such a huge compromise to the left, that much of his base raised

If you watched the state of the union, you know that Trump made a proposal about DACA that was such a huge compromise to the left, that much of his base raised hell. The left refused that compromise, and refused again, when he asked for DACA and the wall to be addressed in the latest spending bill. Since he has twice been rebuffed on his compromises, he's going the other way. That seems reasonable to me.

meri_dian 9y ago
It's sad that the congressional Democracts are so focused on damaging Trump politically that they are unwilling to compromise on border security funding to produce a permanent DACA solution. As you say, Trump gave it to them on a silver platter!
- Bud 9y ago
  No, it is in fact not "sad" that Democrats will not allow Trump to spend billions of dollars to build an ineffectual and innately-offensive "wall" between us and one of our closest allies. There can be no "compromise" on proposals as offensive and wasteful as this.
  - bradleyankrom 9y ago
    also, Mexico was gonna pay for it, 'member?
    - sjwright 9y ago
      I 'member.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bradleyankrom 9y ago
I don't think very many left-of-center people would agree with your assertion that it was a "huge" compromise. They wanted tens of billions of dollars for a symbolic wall, closing of several legal immigration processes, etc. There are several DACA fixes sitting in congress but Republican leadership refuses to bring any of them up for a vote.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  >They wanted tens of billions of dollars for a symbolic wall In fact the wall would have been physical, rather than 'symbolic'
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - codezero 9y ago
    I believe symbolic here means that it won't actually function to deter illegal immigration, at least not proportionally to spending that money on other efforts.
    - rufus_2 9y ago
      Is Israel's border wall symbolic or physical?
      - codezero 9y ago
        I am not sure what your point is. A thing can be both symbolic and physical. Let me know what you want me to clarify. I thought I was pretty clear in the above comment.
  - mejari 9y ago
    Physical things can be symbolic... A wall symbolizing keeping out foreigners without actually doing anything useful to do so is pretty much the definition of symbolic.
  - bradleyankrom 9y ago
    yes, I meant that the wall will physically exist but it's more of a symbol - a KEEP OUT sign of sorts - than an effective tool for border security... or at least not a cost-effective tool.
dahdum 9y ago
I was surprised Democrats didn’t compromise on that, I think they are too focused on making Trump fail at any cost. I’m all for increased immigration and amnesty, but I’m not in support of open borders, so a compromise for increased border security sounded like good policy to me.
- ModernMech 9y ago
  No one is seriously proposing open boarders. Anyone on the right telling you otherwise is selling you a straw man. And let's all remember, a border without a wall is not an "open" border. That's not what that means.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    I consider them open now, in practice not law. Despite also supporting amnesty, chain migration, and increased visa quotas I’ve been told I’m racist for wanting a secure border. Racist for not supporting border policies that create an underclass of undocumented, helpless workers.
    - digitaltrees 9y ago
      Open boarders worked well in the early united states. I don't want to go back to closed boarders between New York and New Jersey.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Open boarders Is that a new term for nautical piracy now that “piracy” has been stolen for copyright infringement?
      - dahdum 9y ago
        Uncapped unskilled immigration works great when you have jobs available, and early America had plenty of those. Coupled with zero entitlement programs it was a perfect recipe for growth. Doesn't work so well now, it would put enormous pressure on social programs already near their breaking point, and drive unemployment sky high as unskilled jobs are diminishing. Crime would increase as poverty is positive correlated. However, if you make it past that initial surge, the 2nd generation could provide an enormous boost to the economy as long as education was prioritized. Compare to uncapped skilled immigration and it's a much higher risk.
rtkwe 9y ago
Basically the opposite happened. There was a congressional compromise the would have given DACA and funding for the border wall then the White House came back demanding additional sweeping changes to legal immigration.
ModernMech 9y ago
I remember Trump saying he would sign literally any immigration deal brought to him by a bipartisan group, and when they did what he asked he rejected it, thanks to Stephen Miller. Then Chuck Schumer basically told Trump to name how much he wanted for the wall, which Trump refused to do. Then the government shut down and Trump relished in blaming Democrats. > The left refused that compromise Why was a compromised needed again? Every congressperson, R and D, when asked said they supported a permanent DACA fix. Why should Democrats be willing to compromise on something like lowering the number of legal immigrants admitted for something everyone claims they want. Why should the left compromise to fund a useless wall the President insists will be paid for by Mexico? Problem seems to be Republicans don't really want to admit they're in favor of deporting in all-but-legal-status Americans from their home land. > Since he has twice been rebuffed on his compromises, he's going the other way. That seems reasonable to me. Sarcasm? That's what's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face, assuming trump was sincere at all about DACA in the first place, which is highly questionable.
- dahdum 9y ago
  Democrats should be willing to compromise because they value the DACA fix more than their opposition to border funding. They are instead doing the same thing Republicans did to Obama, refusing to compromise in order to whip up their base. Any politician that compromises an inch these days will be portrayed as an immoral enemy and attacked by some vocal part of their own base.
  - bradleyankrom 9y ago
    Ds were gonna give him ALL of the border wall money that he wanted - like $25B - and he still backed out.
    - dahdum 9y ago
      They didn’t want to budge on chain migration or the lottery, Trump ran on both those so wasn’t going to budge either. He didn’t back out so much as never get in. Wish congress would have moved forward and put a bill on his desk, despite his statements he would have had to sign it or lose face.
dguaraglia 9y ago
If you believe anything Trump says during a speech, then you are doing it wrong. Always look at the man's actions, instead of paying attention to his words.
rwoodley 9y ago
That is not an accurate summary of what happened. Trump killed any possibility of compromise, insisting on extreme proposals once Congress started to act. Here are the details of what happened back in February on this because it is too long and complicated to summarize here: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-s... Who knows what Trump really wants? One day he says generous things about DACA, the next he wants to kill it. I think it depends whether he watched Fox news in the interim. Or spoke to Stephen Miller. He did the same thing with gun legislation. Says promising things in front of the camera, but then kills anything meaningful after checking in with the NRA and/or Fox news.
rwoodley 9y ago
Do we have to be on the left to think Trump is a nut? Does Trump own the right?
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but apparently the "Right" (as a broad term encompassing a set of different ideologies) is dead. The American "Right" has been replaced by "Republicanism" and dissent is not allowed. If you are not 100% in agreement with Trump, you are Antifa. I wish I was kidding.
bradleyankrom 9y ago
Also, Ds have tried to work directly with Trump to secure a solution for DACA and areas of agreement have been blown up every time by the Stephen Miller/John Kelly faction of the administration. The reality is that there will never be a DACA "compromise" or solution, other than complete dissolution and further ramping up of deportations, while Miller & Co. are in the WH.
digitaltrees 9y ago
Didn't Democrats offer to fund the boarder wall in exchange for a DACA bill? What more compromise is there?
- robotrout 9y ago
  No, they did not. Trump's offer was made for the nation to hear, during the State of the Union. You should watch it again.
  - somebehemoth 9y ago
    Except they actually did: "The president picked a number for the wall, and I accepted it,” Schumer recalled in the midst of the shutdown. He had agreed to a significant sum of money for the wall—reported to be $20 billion, ... The White House ultimately rejected the offer, and later that night, Senate Democrats withheld their votes for a stopgap spending bill." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/democrats-schumer-trump-border-wall-daca/551288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/democra...
  - digitaltrees 9y ago
    Yes they did. A 3 second search would provide plenty of support for the fact that Democrats and Republicans have offered funding for the wall in exchange for certain DACA and immigration reforms. 1. http://azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/a-timeline-of-daca-offers-trump-has-rejected/article_c9c8bfd6-a003-52d3-b1f6-33a06c1b857f.html http://azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/a-time... 2. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-23/schumer-withdraws-border-wall-funding-offer-assuring-another-shutdown https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-23/schumer-withdraws-... Just because Trump offered something doesn't mean Democrats didn't also offer something. Further, Trump says a lot of things, he contradicts himself constantly, some times in the same sentence, so we can act like his statement in the state of the union was some ironclad agreement.
  - mejari 9y ago
    You should not blindly believe whatever Trump says https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-democrats-offer-for-a-wall/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-d...

meri_dian 9y ago

It's sad that the congressional Democracts are so focused on damaging Trump politically that they are unwilling to compromise on border security funding to produce a permanent DACA solution. As you say, Trump gave it to them on a silver platter!

Bud 9y ago
No, it is in fact not "sad" that Democrats will not allow Trump to spend billions of dollars to build an ineffectual and innately-offensive "wall" between us and one of our closest allies. There can be no "compromise" on proposals as offensive and wasteful as this.
- bradleyankrom 9y ago
  also, Mexico was gonna pay for it, 'member?
  - sjwright 9y ago
    I 'member.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bradleyankrom 9y ago

I don't think very many left-of-center people would agree with your assertion that it was a "huge" compromise. They wanted tens of billions of dollars for a symbolic wall, closing of several legal immigration processes, etc. There are several DACA fixes sitting in congress but Republican leadership refuses to bring any of them up for a vote.

creaghpatr 9y ago
>They wanted tens of billions of dollars for a symbolic wall In fact the wall would have been physical, rather than 'symbolic'
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- codezero 9y ago
  I believe symbolic here means that it won't actually function to deter illegal immigration, at least not proportionally to spending that money on other efforts.
  - rufus_2 9y ago
    Is Israel's border wall symbolic or physical?
    - codezero 9y ago
      I am not sure what your point is. A thing can be both symbolic and physical. Let me know what you want me to clarify. I thought I was pretty clear in the above comment.
- mejari 9y ago
  Physical things can be symbolic... A wall symbolizing keeping out foreigners without actually doing anything useful to do so is pretty much the definition of symbolic.
- bradleyankrom 9y ago
  yes, I meant that the wall will physically exist but it's more of a symbol - a KEEP OUT sign of sorts - than an effective tool for border security... or at least not a cost-effective tool.

dahdum 9y ago

I was surprised Democrats didn’t compromise on that, I think they are too focused on making Trump fail at any cost. I’m all for increased immigration and amnesty, but I’m not in support of open borders, so a compromise for increased border security sounded like good policy to me.

ModernMech 9y ago
No one is seriously proposing open boarders. Anyone on the right telling you otherwise is selling you a straw man. And let's all remember, a border without a wall is not an "open" border. That's not what that means.
- dahdum 9y ago
  I consider them open now, in practice not law. Despite also supporting amnesty, chain migration, and increased visa quotas I’ve been told I’m racist for wanting a secure border. Racist for not supporting border policies that create an underclass of undocumented, helpless workers.
  - digitaltrees 9y ago
    Open boarders worked well in the early united states. I don't want to go back to closed boarders between New York and New Jersey.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Open boarders Is that a new term for nautical piracy now that “piracy” has been stolen for copyright infringement?
    - dahdum 9y ago
      Uncapped unskilled immigration works great when you have jobs available, and early America had plenty of those. Coupled with zero entitlement programs it was a perfect recipe for growth. Doesn't work so well now, it would put enormous pressure on social programs already near their breaking point, and drive unemployment sky high as unskilled jobs are diminishing. Crime would increase as poverty is positive correlated. However, if you make it past that initial surge, the 2nd generation could provide an enormous boost to the economy as long as education was prioritized. Compare to uncapped skilled immigration and it's a much higher risk.

rtkwe 9y ago

Basically the opposite happened. There was a congressional compromise the would have given DACA and funding for the border wall then the White House came back demanding additional sweeping changes to legal immigration.

ModernMech 9y ago

I remember Trump saying he would sign literally any immigration deal brought to him by a bipartisan group, and when they did what he asked he rejected it, thanks to Stephen Miller. Then Chuck Schumer basically told Trump to name how much he wanted for the wall, which Trump refused to do. Then the government shut down and Trump relished in blaming Democrats. > The left refused that compromise Why was a compromised needed again? Every congressperson, R and D, when asked said they supported a permanent DACA fix. Why should Democrats be willing to compromise on something like lowering the number of legal immigrants admitted for something everyone claims they want. Why should the left compromise to fund a useless wall the President insists will be paid for by Mexico? Problem seems to be Republicans don't really want to admit they're in favor of deporting in all-but-legal-status Americans from their home land. > Since he has twice been rebuffed on his compromises, he's going the other way. That seems reasonable to me. Sarcasm? That's what's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face, assuming trump was sincere at all about DACA in the first place, which is highly questionable.

dahdum 9y ago
Democrats should be willing to compromise because they value the DACA fix more than their opposition to border funding. They are instead doing the same thing Republicans did to Obama, refusing to compromise in order to whip up their base. Any politician that compromises an inch these days will be portrayed as an immoral enemy and attacked by some vocal part of their own base.
- bradleyankrom 9y ago
  Ds were gonna give him ALL of the border wall money that he wanted - like $25B - and he still backed out.
  - dahdum 9y ago
    They didn’t want to budge on chain migration or the lottery, Trump ran on both those so wasn’t going to budge either. He didn’t back out so much as never get in. Wish congress would have moved forward and put a bill on his desk, despite his statements he would have had to sign it or lose face.

dguaraglia 9y ago

If you believe anything Trump says during a speech, then you are doing it wrong. Always look at the man's actions, instead of paying attention to his words.

rwoodley 9y ago

That is not an accurate summary of what happened. Trump killed any possibility of compromise, insisting on extreme proposals once Congress started to act. Here are the details of what happened back in February on this because it is too long and complicated to summarize here: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-s... Who knows what Trump really wants? One day he says generous things about DACA, the next he wants to kill it. I think it depends whether he watched Fox news in the interim. Or spoke to Stephen Miller. He did the same thing with gun legislation. Says promising things in front of the camera, but then kills anything meaningful after checking in with the NRA and/or Fox news.

rwoodley 9y ago

Do we have to be on the left to think Trump is a nut? Does Trump own the right?

dguaraglia 9y ago
I'm sorry, but apparently the "Right" (as a broad term encompassing a set of different ideologies) is dead. The American "Right" has been replaced by "Republicanism" and dissent is not allowed. If you are not 100% in agreement with Trump, you are Antifa. I wish I was kidding.

bradleyankrom 9y ago

Also, Ds have tried to work directly with Trump to secure a solution for DACA and areas of agreement have been blown up every time by the Stephen Miller/John Kelly faction of the administration. The reality is that there will never be a DACA "compromise" or solution, other than complete dissolution and further ramping up of deportations, while Miller & Co. are in the WH.

digitaltrees 9y ago

Didn't Democrats offer to fund the boarder wall in exchange for a DACA bill? What more compromise is there?

robotrout 9y ago
No, they did not. Trump's offer was made for the nation to hear, during the State of the Union. You should watch it again.
- somebehemoth 9y ago
  Except they actually did: "The president picked a number for the wall, and I accepted it,” Schumer recalled in the midst of the shutdown. He had agreed to a significant sum of money for the wall—reported to be $20 billion, ... The White House ultimately rejected the offer, and later that night, Senate Democrats withheld their votes for a stopgap spending bill." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/democrats-schumer-trump-border-wall-daca/551288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/democra...
- digitaltrees 9y ago
  Yes they did. A 3 second search would provide plenty of support for the fact that Democrats and Republicans have offered funding for the wall in exchange for certain DACA and immigration reforms. 1. http://azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/a-timeline-of-daca-offers-trump-has-rejected/article_c9c8bfd6-a003-52d3-b1f6-33a06c1b857f.html http://azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/a-time... 2. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-23/schumer-withdraws-border-wall-funding-offer-assuring-another-shutdown https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-23/schumer-withdraws-... Just because Trump offered something doesn't mean Democrats didn't also offer something. Further, Trump says a lot of things, he contradicts himself constantly, some times in the same sentence, so we can act like his statement in the state of the union was some ironclad agreement.
- mejari 9y ago
  You should not blindly believe whatever Trump says https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-democrats-offer-for-a-wall/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-d...