I see the WaPo Editorial Board thinks the Democrats should consider accepting the President Trump deal concerning the government shutdown, which is …
President Trump on Saturday offered Democrats three years of deportation protections for some immigrants in exchange for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, a proposal immediately rejected by Democrats and derided by conservatives as amnesty.
Aiming to end the 29-day partial government shutdown, Trump outlined his plan in a White House address in which he sought to revive negotiations with Democrats, who responded that they would not engage in immigration talks until he reopened the government.
I’m not a member of a political party, I’m an independent, and as an independent and someone who longs for rationality[1], I’d advise the Democrats in charge of negotiations to respond with a warm No.
They should welcome the fact that President Trump made a real counter-offer, which shows he’s making progress on learning how to make a political deal. It’s a start. They might cautiously consider acknowledging that he’s making this progress. In a way, it’s an insult to Trump, one which he acknowledges only at his own peril. It’s a way to make him stop thinking and start reacting, so it’s a tactic to be used with a great deal of care.
But the answer should be No, and not because it’s inadequate, but because it’s a denial of the logic of the Democrats in refusing to build the wall, namely because it will be ineffectual. By answering Yes, they would destroy their own position. Even a Yes accompanied with some statement suggesting the Wall will be ineffective is to show intellectual and moral weakness.
I think they should do the following:
- Acknowledge the concerns about illegal immigration are real, even if the southern border crossings have been dropping for years. Andrew Sullivan has gone into this in great detail.
- Reiterate the ineffectiveness of a wall.
- Suggest that, instead of a wall, we investigate the causes of these illegal immigration, and that the funding request for a wall instead be dedicated to research of those causes.
- Require this be a joint legislative / executive operation. I am concerned about ideological influences on conclusions, so either Congress gets oversight of the process, or it be delegated to a neutral and respected third party.
- Suggest, ever so delicately, that in some way Trump’s name could be attached to this research project. Appealing to his vanity is a proven approach with President Trump.
This is not without risks. For example, some shallow “analysts” will conclude the other countries suffer from gang violence, and recommend we eradicate the gangs without having the wit to ask why the gangs exist. Accepting such a conclusion will result in a lot of wasted money, time, and effort.
But a deeper, more effective analysis will also have its own risks. After all, the causes of Central American immigration are not necessarily independent of the big kahuna to the north. Suppose one of the conclusions is that American farm exports have destroyed the local ag economy. Will we be willing to even publish such a conclusion, much less act on it by restricting our ag exports? Tell an Iowa farmer that the Central American market is now closed. Or a zealous free marketeer libertarian who has no experience with the real world. Think of their reactions.
Still, I think this is the direction a rational country should go. Pursuing permanent solutions to these problems is how a mature country should pursue its business. Keep out the barbarians immigrants! is the slick response of the grifter who understands the fears of his audience, and rather than lead them to a permanent solution, instead sells them the piece of shit solution that he can sell … and sell … and sell. And profit from.
Give Trump a chance to be a real leader, rather than this Fake Leader! we’ve been seeing so far. He actually suggested this idea once, himself. And, at the same time, give these immigrants a chance to see their home countries revived. If he accepts, wonderful. If not, it’s another hammer the Democrats can use when wooing independents.
