Image 01 Image 03

Will Congress Reach a DACA Deal?

Will Congress Reach a DACA Deal?

The shutdown may repeat itself this week.

Immigration has come to the forefront again as the government faces another possible shutdown this week. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has already stated she will vote no against a funding bill if it does not include language for DACA members, also known as Dreamers.

Another option, though, is temporary protection after President Donald Trump’s March 5 deadline passes.


The Dreamers became a bargaining chip in January during the shutdown fiasco in January, which showed the fractions within the Democrat party. Professor Jacobson blogged:

More deeply, the Democratic Party is split between the pragmatists and the base. The base is furious at what just happened, they feel betrayed, and they want to fight. A reporter for the Washington Examiner tweeted today:

I was at Netroots Nation in August. My biggest takeaway from the conference was that people underestimate how far Left the base has tacked …. Relevant today.

This base has representatives in the Senate; after all, 16 Democrats voted No on the funding bill, including likely 2020 presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris. They are the future of the Democratic Party, at least through 2020, and they represent the far left base. They know that’s where the energy in the party is, where the activist foot soldiers are, and where the social media dominance resides.

It looks like Harris will not back down and will take the same stance this time away. She told MSNBC that she would “have a problem” with a bill that didn’t protect the Dreamers and that they “have to protect these kids.” From Newsmax:

Harris said that deciding between the Dreamers and keeping the government open is a “false choice” and “we can do both.”

“They’re [the Dreamers] sleeping 10-deep on someone’s living room floor, walking through the halls of the United States Congress because they believe in our government, and these kids believe that if we see them and hear their stories, we would acknowledge that we should continue to protect them, as we promised we would,” Harris told MSNBC.

The senator said DACA should not be seen as a partisan issue and “it’s a mischaracterization of this issue to suggest there’s a left and a right on this. Frankly, I think there’s a wrong and a right, period.”

Temporary Protections?

Politico reported that Congress just might punt “on its Dreamer dilemma.” Some senators seem to have come to this conclusion, too:

“That may be where we’re headed because, you know, Congress is pretty dysfunctional,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the few to publicly acknowledge the possibility of a temporary fix. “That’d be a real loss. But that’s probably where we’re headed, OK?”

Some senators are already deriding a yearlong patch as “misguided,” a “Plan Z” and a proposal that would keep immigrants “in fear.” But lawmakers have only until March 5 to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program under President Donald Trump’s deadline.

And in a Congress that has routinely struggled to keep the lights on, at least some lawmakers say a temporary fix for Dreamers might be all but inevitable. Lawmakers return to Washington this week with another government shutdown looming after Feb. 8 and a deal on Dreamers still far out of reach — a reality that could make a DACA stopgap increasingly appealing.

Leon Fresco, an immigration attorney, also thinks this will happen, especially since Trump has hinted for awhile that he will extend his deadline. I have seen conflicting reports on this. Last month, one week an official said that Trump cannot extend it while the following week the president hinted he would:

Trump also said he could give Congress more time to pass legislation that would protect DACA recipients if lawmakers do not act by his March 5 deadline for unwinding the program. He said he would not guarantee that he would extend the deadline he set in September, but added: “I certainly have the right to that, if I want.”

Fresco also noted that other immigration programs have been renewed on a temporary basis. One is the EB-5 visa program that “grants wealthy foreign investors a shot at green cards if they invest a significant amount of money in domestic enterprises.”

Another is the “Conrad 30 waiver for immigrant doctors in rural areas, as well as a visa for religious workers.”

Bipartisan Deal Presented Today

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) presented a bipartisan deal today that addresses two main parts of the immigration debate. From The Washington Post:

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) formally introduced a bill that would grant permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” and start bolstering security along the U.S.-Mexico border. But the measure would not immediately authorize spending the $25 billion President Trump is seeking to fortify the border with new wall and fence construction. Some Republicans are seeking at least $30 billion.

The McCain-Coons plan also would grant legal status to dreamers who have been in the country since 2013 — a larger pool of undocumented immigrants than the 1.8 million Trump supports legalizing.

Yup. No funding for a wall, which Trump has made crystal clear must be part of a deal. So it should come to no one’s surprise that the White House has shot down the deal. From CNN:

A White House official rebuffed the effort, telling CNN that it takes “a lot of effort” to write up a bill worse than the Graham-Durbin immigration bill, but somehow “this one is worse.”

Trump tweeted about the latest immigration efforts Monday, writing, “Any deal on DACA that does not include STRONG border security and the desperately needed WALL is a total waste of time. March 5th is rapidly approaching and the Dems seem not to care about DACA. Make a deal!”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


McCain’s brain tumor must be affecting his logical functions if he thinks that he can present a bullshit deal that gives the Democrats everything they want in exchange for NOTHING but a promise to maybe authorize funding for the wall if they feel like it.

And enough with this ‘bipartisan’ bullshit. One or two idiots with an R next to their names don’t make a deal ‘bipartisan’.

Trump has already made the best deal to these that they are going to get. The Dems have no bargaining position other than shutting the government down. They were overwhelmingly blamed for the last one and if they want to do it again, that would be great. It will only further weaken their position. Not only will Trump get everything he wants, we all will get THE WALL! This “bi-partisan” deal is a non-starter and irrelevant.

CaliforniaJimbo | February 5, 2018 at 5:44 pm

Under a milquetoast President, the Coons -McCain deal would be a no brainer. However, we have in office a President who means what he says. No Wall, No Security? No Deal.

They know that’s where the energy in the party is, where the activist foot soldiers are, and where the social media dominance resides.

The D’rats don’t need energy, foot soldiers, or social media noise. They need votes, and the further left the Party moves, the more desperate it will become for new voters—new, not particularly American, and very easily bribed with Government freebies. They won’t get what they need by appealing to American voters; their only hope lies in votes by someone else.

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) formally introduced a bill that would grant permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” and start bolstering security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Don’t you believe it—President Trump certainly won’t. Watch closely; if this goes anywhere, “permanent legal status” will morph into “amnesty” and then into “citizenship”. Nothing less—such as, say, a harmless desire to “protect these kids”—is of any use at all to the D’rats.

build the wall first, then talk DACA

    Milhouse in reply to ronk. | February 5, 2018 at 10:59 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, once the border is secure, i.e. nobody is crossing it except at authorized crossings, we can even talk about amnesty. But not a moment earlier. Until then any such talk encourages more people to come.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2018 at 12:01 am

      That not only will NEVER happen, it doesn’t resolve the problem.

      The resolution is what I’ve said for years; level the gradient. When you have a situation where people see YUGE advantage to come here on ANY terms, you have to address the reality that allows that.

      1. prohibit employment of illegals, and

      2. prohibit any contract with illegals (i.e., rental or lease agreements).

      Both are legally doable.

        Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | February 6, 2018 at 12:22 am

        3. Make it illegal to transport illegal aliens. Private transportation, public transportation, it doesn’t matter. We have a human trafficking law in Texas that does just that, an it’s passed judicial review. So most definitely doable.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 6, 2018 at 1:07 am

        I’m not that concerned about visa overstayers, because they’ve passed whatever scrutiny is necessary to issue the visa in the first place, so we can have at least some level of confidence that they’re not terrorists or gangsters or rapists or anything like that. In my view that is the only legitimate function of border security, and it’s a vital one. I used to support open borders until 11-Sep-2001; I’d support them again if there were some way to prevent bad people coming in to harm us. Visa procedures also need overhauling, to do a better job of screening out those who come in order to do us harm. But whatever level of vetting is appropriate, I’m not bothered by people who pass it deciding to overstay.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2018 at 1:13 am

          Illegal is illegal, Milhouse. Regardless of your “comfort level”.

          Remember the Boston bombers? Not only legal and vetted, but naturalized citizens.


          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 6, 2018 at 7:48 am

          Sodom had laws too; wicked ones. Not every law ought to be enforced.

          The Boston bombers merely show what we already knew, that not all threats are foreign. Even if we were to seal the borders tight and never let anyone enter for any reason, we’d still have plenty of crime. But that’s not a reason to abandon the borders and import even more crime. Even if we’d managed to keep MS-13 completely out of the country we’d still have many domestic gangs, but that doesn’t mean it was OK to import a new one.

          We have to be on alert for domestic criminals, and we have to secure the border to prevent their number being supplemented by foreign criminals. But we have to accept that we’re never going to be 100% efficient at either task. Some citizens and legal residents will turn to crime, and some foreign criminals will pass whatever vetting we impose. Visa overstayers, though, more resemble legal residents in this regard than they do unvetted border-crossers.

This is for Rags – I’m going to go out on a limb and take a position, same one I took on the bet we made that YOU LOST – There will be NO DEAL this week, not on any terms. Democrats cannot allow one to be made. Now is this a wise decision on their part? No, it’s idiotic, because it means that A) they are going to abandon their promise to the “Dreamers”, and B) once we hit the March 6 deadline Trump is going to be able to start doing some focused and well publicized deportations of some of them, which will have the dems howling and screaming for a deal.

And of course once they’re howling and screaming they won’t get terms as good as they would if they had negotiated reasonably, but we’ll wait til then to see exactly how that plays out.

But that’s an issue for then, for now, for this week – NO DEAL, NOT ON ANY TERMS. Not because of Trump, but because the Dem leadership can’t afford to allow there to be any kind of deal, not on any terms.

once they start to feel pain, then maybe, maybe not. But nothing til then, guaranteed.

    Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | February 5, 2018 at 7:12 pm

    I’m still waiting on that link showing I said what you claimed I said.

    But, as usual, you’re full of shit, Tommi. This is EXACTLY what I predicted…a beginning of a deal, AND on the terms that include as a default an AMNESTY for MILLIONS.

    Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | February 5, 2018 at 8:00 pm

    STILL waiting, Tommi.

    “Are you really going to play “show me the link, show me the link”? Because if you are, then I’ll show it to you. But if you were to just man up, and admit you made a mistake and your predictions, which everyone saw, were wrong, then I’ll drop it.

    Or I guess I can go link hunting, but in that case I will NOT drop it.”

    Or, “If you step over that line, I’m gonna fight you”.

    I’ve stepped over your line several times now, Tommi. Bring it, nancy-boi.

A deal with the wall but without mandatory e-verify and employer prison terms for hiring an “undocumented” is a victory for the Dems.

If the CEO and chairman of the board of the company serve prison time after hiring the “undocumented”, companies will check legal status very carefully

There will always be a way for illegals to get in. If they can’t work or collect welfare once here, they will have no choice but go home (of a more welcoming country like Canada).

    Arminius in reply to EdD. | February 6, 2018 at 12:40 am

    An employer can only “check” so carefully and if you go beyond that you, the employer, are committing per the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. You must accept any documents an employee wants to give you as long as they establish identity an legal status, an employer can not ask for more or different documents, and if they appear “reasonably valid” the employer must accept them. Do more and you are being “overzealous” and can be sued by the DoJ, La Raza, MALDEF, you name it.

    So, here’s a thought. Let’s also prosecute illegals for committing document fraud, a five year felony per the Treasury Code, when they present false documents to an employer. And for perjury when they falsify their I9 forms and sign that they can legally work in this country. That’s what it says on the form, that it’s perjury, another five year felony per the Treasury Code, to sign and swear that you can legally work here when you can not.

    Those crimes are never prosecuted. In fact the IRS and SSA actively aid and abet them. I’m sick and tired of people blaming the employers for everything when my hands are pretty much tied. Meanwhile, just about every illegal alien in this country who has ever applied for a job has committed at least two felonies.

My prediction is that there will be NO DACA deal this month. The Dems would rather run midterm campaigns on how the Republicans have to be replaced so that the Dreamers can be saved. The Republicans can not go into a midterm having given away the farm on immigration. So, no deal. Just a llloootttt of annoying whining and hand-wringing.

Dreamers need to get in line like everyone else. They should have gotten in line a decade ago.

Hey, we showed up for tickets at 10am, but we waited till 8pm for Schumer to give us back stage passes. He never did, so it’s cool if we just cut in the front of the line, right?

“Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) formally introduced a bill that would grant..”

See, this is why the illegals, dreamers too, need to be physically removed from the United States. Because RINOs will simply grant them all amnesty later on, no matter what deal they agree to today.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | February 5, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    Mr. Establishment already opened that door…threw open the Overton Window…and all that remains is the shaping of the deal.

Could we back up and define some terms here, please? DACA is “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”, a policy initiated by Barack Obama via EO. It was supposedly “a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from “low priority” individuals with good behavior. “Dreamers” get their name from the DREAM Act, which was never passed by Congress. So why are we talking about “Dreamers” when Congress never passed the law?

The problem with Government Shut-Downs is just that they won’t stay shut-down.
They come back, and they get back-pay.
That isn’t anywhere close to what I want…

“Here to stay; future engineer; Nasa…”

Statistically: yes, probably here to stay, though not worst of the criminal lot; the only engineering they’ll do is to get welfare benefits and/or acts to become a prison inmate; and the sign-holder could not define what “Nasa” means if their life depended on it – though they might tell you Nasa is a muslim outreach organization.

Disgraced former president and traitor Barack hussein Obama turned Nasa into a muslim outreach organization:

How disgraced former president and traitor Barack hussein Obama ruined NASA space exploration:

Screw this DACA crap: when is obamacare getting repealed?

Paul In Sweden | February 5, 2018 at 11:12 pm

Oh well… in spite of the magnanimous efforts of our Commander and Chief there could not be a bipartisan deal reached. Time to blow the dust off the existing immigration laws and start enforcing them.

D’s are convinced, correctly, that they took a pounding on the shutdown.

They won’t do it again. Not for illegal aliens alone.

DACA won’t pass either – D’s won’t compromise at all. They’d prefer no deal to any deal that includes any of the changes R’s are looking for.