Mr. President, Don’t Betray Your Base With a DACA-Only Deal

President Trump faces a defining moment as he considers what to do about the DACA mess and the wall along the southern border that was the central promise of his campaign. Will the president make good on his repeated vows to establish a pro-citizen, pro-worker immigration policy—including a wall? Or will he accept the same old “amnesty now, enforcement later” bargain that has been on the table for years?

Trump supporters like me are understandably nervous. To be clear, we are not upset about the president’s willingness to find a deal that would allow the “dreamers” who were brought to this country as children to remain here legally. We support the president’s interest in finding a legislative solution to replace the unconstitutional executive action that President Barack Obama imposed with his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

What we cannot support is a DACA deal that deals with the dreamers alone, without paying for the wall and making other efforts to enforce and strengthen immigration laws. Accepting a dreamers-only deal would enrage and alienate the president’s base. Republican voters bristle at being compelled to negotiate for enforcement of existing immigration laws or border protections. These are basic responsibilities of government—not bargaining chips . . . Read the rest at the Washington Post

About Chris Buskirk

Chris is publisher and editor of American Greatness and the host of The Chris Buskirk Show. He was a Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute and received a fellowship from the Earhart Foundation. Chris is a serial entrepreneur who has built and sold businesses in financial services and digital marketing. He is a frequent guest on NPR's "Morning Edition." His writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Hill, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter at @TheChrisBuskirk

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

6 responses to “Mr. President, Don’t Betray Your Base With a DACA-Only Deal

  • The comments section of WaPo is pretty hilarious. A whole lot of people who hate the President saying how the wall needs to be funded by Mexico because the President said that’s what he wanted on the campaign trail. This is Alinsky’s rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” The reality is that the Wall is more important than the price-tag to both sides. If the Wall doesn’t get done, it hurts the President. If the Wall does get done, it hurts the Democrats. The Wall is not only at thing, it is also a symbol and both sides know this.

    • If the wall is simply the physical wall, you’re wrong.

      If the wall is the physical wall plus e-verify, ending chain migration, ending the visa lottery and slashing refugees, ordinary immigration and these stupid H1 whatever special visa for big donors you’re right.

      • I’m not sure how I’m wrong in my evaluation regarding the upside/downside of the Wall as a symbol. I agree with you that the Wall is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for immigration management. I would also include eliminating ‘sanctuary’ anything.

  • If he betrays his base on this, there’s no coming back

    • Personally, not another dime to any GOP organization until they show what they can do immigration.

  • “Trump supporters like me are understandably nervous. To be clear, we are not upset about the president’s willingness to find a deal that would allow the ‘dreamers’ who were brought to this country as children to remain here legally.”

    Really? Why not? This is the same b.s. foisted on the nation in 1986, which was supposed to be the LAST amnesty deal, coupled with border security and a crackdown on businesses that hire illegals which never happened. And you’d get suckered AGAIN so the left can’t call you heartless? Before the ink is dry on any DACA deal, the demand for legalizing their extended family “how can you break up families!!!” will be deafening–along with the demand that any conditions imposed on DACA recipients “they can’t possibly afford to pay fines or back taxes!!” be waived.

Comments are closed.