Trump’s Harsh Immigration Rhetoric Makes DACA Fix An Even Heavier Lift

during the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives January 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the first State of the Union address given by U.S. President Donald Trump and his second joint-session address to Congress.
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 30: U.S. President Donald J. Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives January 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the first State of ... WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 30: U.S. President Donald J. Trump delivers the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives January 30, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the first State of the Union address given by U.S. President Donald Trump and his second joint-session address to Congress. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

President Trump’s immigration-heavy State of the Union address, laden with warnings about crime and terrorism and heaped with false assertions, may darken the already dimming prospects for a bipartisan deal to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers whose protections Trump revoked last year.

As several separate groups on Capitol Hill meet almost daily to negotiate, they say they have made almost no progress, even on agreeing on the parameters of what an immigration deal could include. Rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats alike say Trump’s insistence, reiterated in the primetime speech and endorsed by GOP leadership, on deep cuts to legal immigration will alienate potential Democratic allies and put the prospects for a narrow deal on DACA in jeopardy.

In his State of the Union speech, Trump doubled down on the four “pillars” his administration has insisted be included in an immigration deal: a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers, tens of billions of dollars for border walls, the elimination of the diversity visa lottery, and a sharp reduction in family-based immigration.

“These issues should be part of comprehensive immigration reform, but they’re being thrown into the Dreamers issue, making it far more difficult for there to be a consensus,” Rep. Adrián Espaillat (D-NY), a leading member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, told TPM. 

The most toxic provision, Espaillat and other members of both parties said, was the piece limiting family immigration sponsorship to only spouses and minor children.

“If this law had been active in 1964 when I came to the United States, I wouldn’t be here in the U.S. Congress right now, because my family petitioned for me,” he said. 

Moderate Republicans in the House and Senate are also deeply uncomfortable with Trump’s proposal, which would decrease legal immigration by about 44 percent.

“The family reunification piece is going to be the trickiest part,” Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) told TPM. “If he wants to help the nuclear family, as he says, he probably should include parents, too.”

Trump’s untrue assertion that “under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives,” also riled lawmakers and made them more skeptical of Trump as a negotiating partner.

“Yeah, that’s not true. It’s just false and wrong,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) told TPM. “I don’t know if he just has a misunderstanding of the law or he’s intentionally misrepresenting the facts.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who previously said he would build Trump’s border wall himself if it helped protect Dreamers from deportation, was incensed at this characterization of family sponsorship.

“Is your sister a ‘distant relative,’ Mr. President? Are your adult children distant relatives?” Gutierrez asked, his voice rising over the crowd around him. 

Even before the President’s speech, lawmakers attempting to negotiate a deal for Dreamers by the Trump administration’s deadline of March 5 were growing more pessimistic.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who has been meeting almost daily with House and Senate leaders, had a grim assessment when he spoke to TPM on Tuesday. “We haven’t made any progress. We aren’t very close at all,” he said.

Asked how the current stalemate is resolved, Durbin, who has been pushing for a path to citizenship for Dreamers for nearly 20 years, threw up his hands. “I don’t know.”

Asked if he saw any signs of flexibility in the meetings from GOP leadership, he gave a definitive, “No.”

A separate, much larger group of rank-and-file Senators from both parties has been holding their own meetings, attempting to settle their differences using an ornamental talking stick and Girl Scout cookies. But lawmakers participating in those meetings tell reporters there has also been little tangible progress.

“When you get 20 to 30 people, everybody has something a little different to say,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) noted as she exited a Tuesday convening of the group. 

“There are a lot of proposals out there but nothing has been conclusively resolved,” added Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL). 

“What’s being discussed is what is the starting point,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters, adding that any agreements are extremely tentative and could rapidly change or fall apart. “If I gave you information walking out at 4:50, it could be different at 5:10.”

As the deadline for a resolution draws closer, with no breakthrough in sight, immigrants about to lose their DACA status as well as their families and employers are preparing for the worst.

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. the four “pillars” his administration has insisted be included in an immigration deal: a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers

    Before “negotiating” again, Democrats should listen closely to what various House Republicans are saying about the above.

  2. The most toxic provision, Espaillat and other members of both parties said, was the piece limiting family immigration sponsorship to only spouses and minor children.

    “If this law had been active in 1964 when I came to the United States, I wouldn’t be here in the U.S. Congress right now, because my family petitioned for me,” he said.

    And that is EXACTLY the outcome that’s intended by the white nationalist anti-immigration movement – preventing people like Rep Espaillat from ever coming here in the first place, from becoming citizens and voters and elected officials.

  3. If you look back at the history, you find that when they had this discussion in the 60s the proposal was to have immigration based on merit. That was rejected by Republicans, who were worried about having an influx of non-white immigrants, so they moved to the system we have now, based in family connections plus work visas. Ironically, they got what they were afraid of, since the people in Western European nations have a better life than here and tend to come here for jobs install numbers, while people in the worse off nations of the world (which are largely non-white) come here for the opportunities of America and come here in much larger numbers. Each will bring family members, and the non-white families are again larger. So, Republicans had a chance and designed a system based on their belief that they would get a bunch of white people to come here instead of the diverse population that did. And of course now they are arguing to get the system they could have had 50 years ago, in the hope that they get more white people and less non-white.

    Just goes to show the Republican immigration plan has no thought behind it except that they want to keep anyone who is not white out of the nation.

  4. Somewhat OT-

    Why didn’t Dems walk out during the more ridiculous portions of Trump’s drug- induced SOTU?
    (such as the totally false statements on immigration)

    Nancy Pelosi has the answer:
    “Let the attention be on his slobbering self,” Pelosi told members, according to two sources in the room. “If you want to walk out, don’t come in.”
    “Any kind of similar interruption by Democrats [you lie!] would only fuel the Republican base and distract from Democratic attempts to rebut the speech after the fact, Pelosi argued.”

    What happened to the Womens March? Where is #Resist? Why do Dems suck lollypops while Repubs roll over them? I am for engagement, but wouldn’t respect for the institution be satisfied by showing up, and then leaving if the President got insulting with his lies? I would do it at a dinner party after repeated lies and insults; would not it be also appropriate for this media-political rally event called SOTU (USA! USA! USA!)?

  5. There are probably 75-100 HoR R members who will never vote for amnesty under any circumstances. A vote for amnesty would be an immediate primary challenge. The only thing which is giving this reform ANY sort of chance is the number of retiring R members who don’t need to worry about a primary challenge.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

10 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for nickdanger Avatar for jep07 Avatar for cervantes Avatar for losamigos Avatar for drriddle Avatar for dickweed Avatar for professorpoopypants Avatar for greysea

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: