The editors of the Washington Post have taken the same position as I have with respect to DACA and the Supreme Court case for which oral arguments will be heard today:
As the Supreme Court hears legal arguments Tuesday on the Obama-era policy that provided a reprieve from removal and gave job permits to hundreds of thousands of young unauthorized immigrants, and on the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind that policy, it’s worth remembering some history. Specifically, that members of Congress of both parties have been trying, and failing, to codify those very protections for so-called dreamers since nearly the turn of the century.
It was August 2001 when then-Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, introduced the Dream Act, outlining a pathway to legal permanent residency for migrants who entered the United States as minors, usually with their parents. Since then, repeated iterations of that measure have become enmeshed in the broader partisan impasse over immigration, even as lawmakers, including many Republicans, voiced ritual sympathy for dreamers.
and
But Congress could regain some respect by doing the right, the obviously right, thing before the court rules.
A narrowly-tailored bill could be brought to the floor and voted on quickly. I believe it would receive bipartisan support.
I have a personal interest in seeing DACA resolved in a bipartisan, equitable conclusion. A young man, shielded from possible deportation under the DACA program, has worked for us over 20 years, becoming more a family member than an employee.
We talked this morning about DACA arguments being presented in the Supreme Court, and he is deeply worried. People like him are always under the cloud of uncertainty on a number of fronts, including the inability to travel outside this country without re-entry concerns. I tried to assuage his worries, citing the high percentages of bipartisan support there is for the Dreamer group. Should an immigration bill be introduced by Congress, providing DACA legitimacy along with upgrades discouraging illegal border crossings, I’m sure such a bill would pass. But, with so much energy being expended on disposing of the current president, turning a blind eye even towards passing constructive trade agreements, there is little reason to believe partisan egos can be sidelined for the good of those DACA individuals. It’s all so discouraging…..
There is no version of a pure DACA bill that I can see Trump signing. If he wouldn’t sign a DACA bill in exchange for the wall, why would he sign a stand alone?
Steve
Maybe he considers legislation on the merits rather than as a horse trading exercise.
Offhand I’d say that including anything in the bill other than DACA inherently means it’s a horse trading exercise. I support a single subject amendment.
The Democrats won’t work on a bill, and even if they would never send it to a President named Trump.
Bipartisanship is dead. Partisanship is alive and well. The purpose of partisanship is to seize and hold and exercise power. The end justifies this means. Any means.