It looks like President Trump may have lost Ann Coulter, maybe for good this time. These screamers from the entertainment wing of the Republican Party are part of the reason for our present troubles with immigration policy. Immigration is a practical problem with practical solutions, yet…
It looks like President Trump may have lost Ann Coulter, maybe for good this time.
These screamers from the entertainment wing of the Republican Party are part of the reason for our present troubles with immigration policy. Immigration is a practical problem with practical solutions, yet the second anybody proposes one, somebody starts shrieking “amnesty” to attract a crowd.
It’s time we recognize the tactic for what it is: a buzzword, a label, meant to cut off thought rather than stimulate it. Proof it works: there are still millions of Americans who think they can have everything they want in this area, despite the fact that many of their ideas are distinctly unpopular. That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how any of this works.
If Trump’s supporters ever want to achieve anything in immigration, this is the moment of truth. Y’all can get real about congressional politics, or you can spend another decade posting the same old comments on Breitbart.
You had your pick of Republicans swearing to oppose illegal immigration, from the silly — Scott Walker talking about a wall with Canada — to the calculated — Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate career to that point was practically designed to get as far right as possible on the issue. And maybe that was the problem — too calculated. So you picked the guy who said cringe-inducing things without blushing.
You picked your champion, a man who said he knew how to make great deals. So let him make one. Let Trump be Trump. Here is the best chance you will ever have at getting some of what you want, so you might ignore the cries of “sellout.”
You wanted somebody to shake things up, right? Somebody to break out of the old ruts of party loyalty? And now people are freaking out that he had a conversation with Congressional leaders. How else would you start?
Trump hasn’t signed off on a deal. He has just identified what the other side wants most, and offered it to them, but I doubt he’s going to give it to them so easily, whatever he’s said already. In a negotiation, nothing is final until everything is final. (Reporters were confused about this, wondering how Trump could tweet about some points of agreement while denying a deal was in place.)
Trump’s style of negotiation is weird, uncommon, and I’m not sure that it’s effective, but there is a method to the madness. True narcissists can rearrange narratives, loyalties, entire worlds in the time it takes you to decide on dinner, but the confusion they create is superficial. Underneath, there is a definite and intentional actor. I think.
Thing is, it’s really hard to tell sometimes, and the narcissist works this to his advantage. One day he’s promising to give away the store, sucking you in, the next he’s got a list of demands so absurd and unreasonable that anybody else would be ashamed to make them. But this guy, no, he’s not ashamed. He just really did that. Your move. I’m no negotiator, but I do know that when the other party knows what you are truly after in a complex negotiation, they have an advantage. Think of the classic psycho in a divorce who doesn’t even want the kids but works the custody angle to get everything else.
Trump knows what the Democrats want. Nobody knows what Trump really wants out of immigration reform. He spoke well of the Dreamers before and during the campaign, and since his election, but he’s also said plenty of harsh stuff. He sent an unmistakable signal with his Sheriff Joe brodown. But he used to be a Democrat. We all know who his base is. So what does he want? A hardline solution? Favorable headlines? Re-election? It’s hard to say, all the more given his general aversion to policy details.
All that uncertainty is giving his base a bit of the anxiety the rest of the country has been feeling this year, but we’ve started getting used to it. So a bit of advice: don’t get so worked up about the talk, and just wait and see what he does. Nobody knows what that will be, including the Democrats, who have no way to stick it to him to get more concessions.
In the meantime, we should talk about common ground, about the realm of possibility, about what it would take to get all the parties to the table. Start by ignoring anyone who uses the words “racist” or “amnesty,” as they’re playing the same game.
The first thing is recognizing that you have to get all the parties to the table. This is often unclear to the most passionate grassroots conservatives, who are nearly unanimous on this issue. I remember filling in as a speaker at a FreedomWorks BlogCon a few years ago (now following James O’Keefe, here’s somebody you’ve never heard of, on how to get noticed), and when one of the speakers asked if any of the 1,000 or so people present supported the Gang of Eight bill, mine was the only hand in the room that went up. Our social media bubbles create the same effect of false unanimity, but the country is not onboard with hardline proposals.
According to polling from March, 60 percent of the country favors a path to legalization for immigrants, while 26 percent of respondents said they prefer a plan to stop immigrants from entering illegally. Just 13 percent said they favored deportation. Just 18 months prior, 46 percent wanted the path, while 39 percent wanted a plan to block illegal immigrants. That’s not surprising, as a surging economy tends to dampen resentments, but even in late 2015, when fevers were higher, there was the same minimal support for deportation.
The issue is an absolute loser in terms of practical politics, and Republicans would do well to reach some sort of deal and move on. In purely political terms, there’s no reason for them to take on the risk of passing a bill on a party-line vote, a bill which would of course have concessions to party moderates. They’d alienate their base while also risking all the blowback that bad law creates. The big, serious reforms for well-acknowledged problems tend to be bipartisan for this reason. The parties insure each other against the blame.
Those polling numbers are also why Republican candidates will talk endlessly about securing the border and getting tough without ever talking deportation. Hardly anybody wants it and a lot of folks think it’s pointless and cruel. Nothing that polls at 13 percent is getting through Congress. That’s basic. And any solution to the illegal immigration problem that doesn’t involve this unpopular idea is necessarily going to involve some sort of legalization. This is why it’s so, so boring to hear half-wits cry amnesty.
You could argue for a wall-only approach, I guess, but Congress knows that’s not going to work. I remember a story from earlier this year where a team of reporters couldn’t find one Texas congressman willing to endorse the approach, and they asked everyone. Congress isn’t going to fight for a wall, but if you really want one, it might produce some more funding for part of one as part of a deal.
The wall, in other words, is negotiable. So is E-Verify. So is more funding for border enforcement, although that’s already grown tremendously. The combined budget for U. S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement has grown from $9.2 billion in 2003 to $19.3 billion today. Back in 1990, Border Patrol was just a $260 million line item. Denying or reducing social services is negotiable, too, although it’s difficult to enforce. It’s more practical to legalize and tax.
But there are two areas, one on each side, that I see as non-negotiable. Or at least they are concerns of such obvious validity that they ought to be taken seriously. One is legal status for Dreamers, and the other is the value of U. S. citizenship.
Trump is handling the Dreamer issue exactly the right way, dealing with the illegality of Obama’s executive order, demanding action, and also creating uncertainty about what he’ll do if Congress doesn’t fix it.
But the substance of the issue, what to do about 800,000 people brought here illegally as children, is uncomplicated. How can you punish children for obeying their parents? Who would do anything else but follow? This is the point that’s non-negotiable for the left and center, and I think many on the right who object to it would find that objection in misunderstanding of how immigration law actually works.
The practical question is easy, too.
