4 ms·

As the article pointed out, no dreamer compromise so it will never pass the house. It is likely useful for uniting the fractured Republican base, but that's abo

As the article pointed out, no dreamer compromise so it will never pass the house. It is likely useful for uniting the fractured Republican base, but that's about it.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
Democrats can add a dreamer compromise and then pass it and see what happens. White House has signaled many times they are willing to do something for the dreamers in exchange for something.
- larkost 7y ago
  The White House may have signaled that, but so far when presented with actual compromises the President has always aggressively rejected them. This is one of the areas that people use to show that the White House staff and the President are not actually on the same page.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Democrats can add a dreamer compromise and then pass it and see what happens Why would they do that? As it is the proposal is a gift to Democrats, exactly what they ought to want to run against: a Republican flip-flop from opposing immigrants taking American jobs to wanting only immigrants who will take good jobs away from Americans. At best, endorsing it would deepen the split between the neoliberal centrist wing of the Democratic Party and the progressive populist wing, but even the neoliberal centrist wing, which probably likes the idea of more focus on immigrants who can depress wages for good jobs, probably doesn't like it coming at the expense of family unification (they’d prefer to see it on top.) > White House has signaled many times they are willing to do something for the dreamers in exchange for something. Only for a very narrow definition of “something”; they've flat out expressly stated (not merely signalled) that they are unwilling to do so except in exchange for The Wall.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  The demands the White House will have will be unpalatable to the Democrats so it's effectively dead. They'll want huge, politically unrealistic concessions in exchange for a dreamer compromise.

As the article pointed out, no dreamer compromise so it will never pass the house. It is likely useful for uniting the fractured Republican base, but that's about it.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

Democrats can add a dreamer compromise and then pass it and see what happens. White House has signaled many times they are willing to do something for the dreamers in exchange for something.

larkost 7y ago
The White House may have signaled that, but so far when presented with actual compromises the President has always aggressively rejected them. This is one of the areas that people use to show that the White House staff and the President are not actually on the same page.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Democrats can add a dreamer compromise and then pass it and see what happens Why would they do that? As it is the proposal is a gift to Democrats, exactly what they ought to want to run against: a Republican flip-flop from opposing immigrants taking American jobs to wanting only immigrants who will take good jobs away from Americans. At best, endorsing it would deepen the split between the neoliberal centrist wing of the Democratic Party and the progressive populist wing, but even the neoliberal centrist wing, which probably likes the idea of more focus on immigrants who can depress wages for good jobs, probably doesn't like it coming at the expense of family unification (they’d prefer to see it on top.) > White House has signaled many times they are willing to do something for the dreamers in exchange for something. Only for a very narrow definition of “something”; they've flat out expressly stated (not merely signalled) that they are unwilling to do so except in exchange for The Wall.
jorblumesea 7y ago
The demands the White House will have will be unpalatable to the Democrats so it's effectively dead. They'll want huge, politically unrealistic concessions in exchange for a dreamer compromise.