Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.



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.


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.


"They are instead doing the same thing Republicans did to Obama, refusing to compromise in order to whip up their base."

Democrats are in the minority though, not the majority like the Republicans had during Obama's tenure. If they want something done then they can do it.


Republicans started out in the minority during Obama’s term, but Democrats bled seats like crazy, especially after ACA. They are using the same playbook now, using tax reform as the rallying cry like ACA was.


It's hard for me to politely express just how disappointed I am in the direction this conversation has gone. It's total garbage. It started with what should have been a "holy shit" point, just a few comments above, and almost immediately turned into an "us vs. them" argument with basically zero value to anyone.

Look at how polarized politics has gotten. It's happening right here.

We have media mega-businesses now which are feeding total garbage to people, astroturfing it so that viewers feel like they're getting information from someone they can trust, and we have a President that is getting information from the same kind of sources and is citing that when announcing policy decisions.

I don't care which "side" you're on, I think that's wrong, corrupt, and terrifying. If it were a Democrat doing it, hell, even citing NPR, I'd still be horrified.

Some of Trump's base thinks there's some kind of deep state thing going on, where there are people in government that are controlling things behind the scenes, independent of whatever administration is in office at the time. You know what? They're absolutely right, save for one little thing: the people doing the controlling aren't in government, they're in offices in shining skyscrapers, and they own the news.

And they would really appreciate it if we wouldn't talk about that, and instead just continue to argue about the stupid wall.


The point I was trying to make is that compromise is critical in government, but our current political climate is antithetical to any.

The media controls the conversation, and at the very top, I believe that's driven primarily by business interests — not political beliefs.


They literally offered DACA in exchange for a wall. Trump administration then tried to change the deal and push for the RAISE Act on top of it.

That's called negotiating in bad faith.


Ds were gonna give him ALL of the border wall money that he wanted - like $25B - and he still backed out.


The funding in that bill was over 10 years, with very little up front. It was also missing key immigration reforms that Trump said he needed to see.

He is pretty clear about what he wants to see, and I’m pretty sure that he sees no deal as better than a bad deal. He’d rather keep the issue in play through mid-terms, or collect some additional policy points (gun control?) that he can throw in the mix to ultimately craft a bill that achieves his core policy objectives around national defense and immigration.

I think immigration policy will be the big issue for the midterms, it will be interesting to see it all play out.


> He is pretty clear about what he wants to see

Going to have to disagree on that. At best, his policy positions can be described as tenuous... more typically, amorphous.


> It was also missing key immigration reforms that Trump said he needed to see.

"Key immigration reforms" is a great way to spin additional constraints on legal family-reunification, that exact program which allowed Melania's family to join her here in this country. He's closing the doors that he and his family used to come here and amass wealth.


Well it was more than just chain migration he wanted changed. Also the “diversity lottery” and overall limits.

No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans who want to see less immigration overall, and more selective granting of visas and green cards.

The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open, to the tune of about a half million green cards per year. Historically average.


Visas would be disproportionately skewed toward people from well-off countries, effectively closing the door to people who want to pursue better lives in America for themselves and their families.


>No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans

There is plenty to question here. Given the CA news and additional leaks regarding the campaign he ran, Trump does not in fact represent a large segment of Americans. At best, he represents a well-targeted, vocal minority.

Specifically, with his actions and his words he is representing and providing a megaphone for the worst xenophobic elements of our society [1].

>The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open

Speak to anyone with DACA or TPS, those doors are decidedly closed.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...


You might want to recheck Trump’s approval ratings.

Oh and the “Trump Defends White Nationalists” trope? Here’s the video [1] and here’s the quote;

“You had some very bad people in the group. But you also had people, that were very fine people, on both sides.... So you know what, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-nazis or the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally, but you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists, okay, and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

If you have an issue with DACA maybe talk to your congressman. Trump’s been trying to get a legal fix for DACA for months now.

As far as TPS is concerned, maybe the “T” doesn’t stand for what I think it does, but 2001-2018 seems pretty generous for the Salvadorans. Unless you’re telling me those countries are still too ravaged from natural disasters over a decade ago to return to?

But I’ll stand by the assertion that while we do have borders and we do enforce immigration law, we also provide entry for half a million immigrants a year. It seems like you’re claiming that because you can cite a specific special interest that isn’t being granted special citizenship outside the legal system that has existed for decades, therefore the doors are closed and that’s somehow xenophobic. I personally think that’s inaccurate and perhaps hyperbolic. While you’re entitled to your opinion, I think a large portion of the country will continue to have reasonable and open debate as to what levels of immigration is right for the country, and how we should select for those immigrants, without resorting to calling it xenophobic.

[1] - https://youtu.be/JmaZR8E12bs


>you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists, okay, and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

You should recall what the rally was about, and what "that group" was trying to accomplish. That group was opposing the removal of monument to a general that fought a treasonous war against our country over the right for humans to keep other humans enslaved. Heather Heyer, an anti-racist protester, was murdered by a member of "that group" that ran her over with a car.

>Trump’s been trying to get a legal fix for DACA for months now.

Trump has been using these children as pawns in a ploy to close doors for legal immigrants. He does not offer fixes, the conman only offers cons.

> As far as TPS is concerned, maybe the “T” doesn’t stand for what I think it does

TPS was a compromise reached with a cadre of powerful xenophobes. It in no way excused or repaired the damage done to El Salvador by the civil war promulgated by the US-backed right-wing government[1]. The people that were displaced by the war and earthquake should have been granted asylum and a path to full citizenship, instead they were left in limbo and abandoned by our leaders, on both sides of the aisle.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War


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.


McConnell and Ryan refuse to consider bills unless 50% of their party supports it. This essentially prevents any bipartisan deal on issues such as immigration.


Polls have indicated that the DREAM Act is supported by an overwhelming majority[0]. If representatives don't mirror that support, then the problem is with them, not the bill.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/sep/19/...


Trump's issue was with what was left out.

'68 percent of Americans said they oppose "the lottery that randomly picks 50,000 people to enter the U.S. each year for greater diversity.' https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-imm...

Family based (chain migration) is more evenly split according to article.


The lottery system doesn't select random people, they're qualified and vetted before being put in the selection pool.


You are right! But also, the problem is that in red states, Republicans have managed to gerrymander the crap out of their districts to ensure they won't get unseated no matter how badly they represent their constituents.


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.


>They wanted tens of billions of dollars for a symbolic wall

In fact the wall would have been physical, rather than 'symbolic'


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.


Is Israel's border wall symbolic or physical?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


[flagged]


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/democra...


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-time...

2. 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.


> Trump's offer was made for the nation to hear

Yes, politicians often make statements for people to hear that are not in alignment with their preceding or following actions; Trump is not especially virtuous compared to other politicians in this regard. In fact, he's been frequently noted for the wide gulf between many of his public statements and not only his subsequent actions, but even his other public statements that are close in time.


You should not blindly believe whatever Trump says

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-isnt-taking-d...


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-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.


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


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.


[flagged]


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.


also, Mexico was gonna pay for it, 'member?


I 'member.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Rome had more than one tier of member of society, (eg citizen and non citizens) you could tie social benefits to certain social performance expectations such as military service, length of residency. I am not advocating open boarders or a multi tier citizen status structure merely showing possible solutions.


> Open boarders

Is that a new term for nautical piracy now that “piracy” has been stolen for copyright infringement?


They offered wall funding for a DACA fix. White House decided to change the deal and push for the whole RAISE Act. That's the definition of giving an inch and taking a mile.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: