I searched E. J. Dionne’s Washington Post column for a moral argument in support of action on DACA in vain. Here’s what I found:
Democrats were moved to force the “dreamers†issue not just by the demands of liberals but also by the requirements of sheer decency. There was additional fury at Trump for blowing up a DACA agreement negotiated painstakingly by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and others. Most Democrats therefore felt they had to reject a budget deal without a dreamers fix, even if shutdowns are hardly an ideal strategy for the party that respects the work government does.
It’s not much of an argument. Is it decent to ignore the problems of native-born Americans, overwhelmed by your concerns for people who are in this country illegally? It’s too much to expect of politicians that they be outraged at everything all at the same time. Basically, I think he’s confusing “niceness” with morality or decency.
He’s implying that the Democrats have one descent position.
I think there are any number of ways in which the Democrats may descend.
I think he’s confusing decency with expediency. IMO finding a formula for allowing the “DREAMers” to remain in the United States is nice; it’s also clement. When you also benefit from it, as the Democrats apparently perceive that they do, it’s difficult to tell where niceness ends and expediency begins.
Here’s a formula for you. I’m not advocating it, just pointing it out. Allow the “DREAMers” to stay with legal status. Preclude their ever applying for citizenship other than by going through the ordinary channels, i.e. returning to their parents’ countries of origin, applying for admission, being admitted, etc. That’s decent, too. It’s not as nice as just giving them green cards but it’s nowhere near as expedient for Democrats.
The problem is that even if clement allowing the “DREAMers” to stay will also have what are apparently unforeseen secondary effects, some of which are adverse for other Democratic constituencies.
He’s implying that the Democrats have one descent position.
So he’s an optimist, then.
Oops, forgot the closing tag.
There was additional fury at Trump for blowing up a DACA agreement negotiated painstakingly by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and others.
This is just stupid. Who was Graham, an noted proponent of open borders and importing a few hundred million Third World peasants into the US so that his masters can loot the country just a little bit more, supposed to be negotiating for? Trump got elected on pretty much the opposite position. Dione is being dishonest with his characterization of the negotiations.
There was additional fury at Trump for blowing up a DACA agreement negotiated painstakingly by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and others.
President Trump agreed to sign whatever they sent him, and he should have agreed to sign it as soon as they got it to him. It never would have passed in the House, and I doubt it would have passed in the Senate.
To me, the moral argument for granting some kind of legal status to most DACA participants is pretty obvious. Are you suggesting there is no moral calculus in play as to whether they should be deported or not?
I don’t know. So far I’ve seen no credible moral argument and am unsure. Asserting that there is a case without articulating the case is not particularly convincing to me. That’s what I think that Mr. Dionne is doing. It’s called “proof by assertion”.
Most seem to confuse morality with niceness. I agree that in many cases it would be an act of mercy not to deport them. As a Christian I am directed to show mercy but I would not consider not showing mercy in every single instance to be immoral—it would just signify that I wasn’t as virtuous as I might be. Christians are also admonished to be just. I’m not certain what the just action would be. It might need to be addressed on a case by case basis.
Oops, I mispelled “decent”
What I meant was that there was a government shutdown looming, and I don’t think anybody should be shocked that the Ds wanted something to make this easy. “Sheer decency” required it to be DCCA. Frankly, the Ds going have picked four things and told the Republicans we want one of them.
Ellipses, I’ve never been able to find anything detailed about the Graham – Durbin agreement. I assume it was bullet points they wanted to run by the President that they didn’t want public.
“It’s called “proof by assertionâ€.”
Lots of that going around. I found that to be the case in the recently linked Rogoff article.
@Dave, I think your proposal for special permits for Dreamers (which I would define as people who enrolled in the program before Trump stopped processing new applications in September) may not be a bad idea. Congress would have to pass it, and my caveat makes clear its entirely retroactive. Each permit could be subject to further accuracy review to make sure the Dreamers aren’t liars.
They aren’t getting deported, but it might end the appetite for immigration reform by taking the best piece off the table. Future legislation could give them a path to citizenship, but that would end up being tiedinto other immigration issues.
I’m a ways and means kind of guy. It stands to reason. The entire idea as it applies to the Congress was explained to me by the chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, a family friend.
For me I would frame the morality like this:
You have some number of people who grew up in this country and, for all intents and purposes, are assimilated and American. They didn’t have a choice about where they grew up. Some don’t speak any language but English. They did not commit any crime – their parents did.
Our current mess of immigration laws gives them no just options. To me, it would be legal to deport them, but doing so would be immoral in many cases.
Life is not fair, but the circumstances are, IMO, extraordinary and are not the fault of those who face deportation. So I do not think it is right to send them packing. And I’m generally a law-and-order guy.
I realize the way I’m describing this doesn’t exactly fit every dreamer. I think there is a distinction between someone brought here at 16 years (the DACA cut-off age) vs. someone at 16 months. So there is a moral spectrum here and a case could be made to put the deport line at different points on that spectrum.
But for me the moral issue is about punishing people for circumstances they didn’t create that put them in a position where they don’t have control or options to find a legitimate way forward.
And note I’m not making a moral argument that they must be granted citizenship, but I think they deserve the opportunity to apply and deserve to be granted provisional legal status in the United States until their specific circumstances can be adjudicated.
How about someone who came here on their own at age 14? And how would one go about administering the difference?
“Oh, I came with my parents.”
“Where are they?”
“They went back to Uruguay.”
How about the “DREAMer” who speaks no English and went back to Costa Rica every summer to visit grandma? Why is it moral to eject her but not the “DREAMer” who has been here the entire time? If anything it’s a moral argument against immigration restrictions.
What I find missing from most alleged “moral arguments” is that they could be made about practically any law. Should you eject a child from his home when the home was purchased with the proceeds from theft? The clearest moral case is that the parents shouldn’t have come here to begin with.
Dave,
That’s why I think the circumstances need to be adjudicated based on each case. To do that requires some kind of provisional legal status. A blanket, deport them all policy is both unnecessary and cruel.
@andy, I think there is a secondary moral issue in that a bunch of people were encouraged by our government to give their names, addresses and background information to the federal government. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as is the lack of appreciation for the subtle impermency of excutive orders, even though it seems like most of the country doesn’t know it. But our government induced these people to step up and out themselves.
I assume the DACA program included privacy commitments, but I assume they also dissapear if the EO dissapears.
PD,
That’s a good point. One of my principles is that I believe if the government makes a promise it should endeavor to keep it which is one reason I don’t favor governing by executive order.