So it begins…

The Post published an editorial yesterday afternoon imploring Democrats to use their leverage in the border wall fight for a “truly moral purpose” — to protect the Dreamers. The editorial begins with predictable throat-clearing about the shutdown being on Trump and the wall being a wasteful, ineffective, prejudice-driven response to a made-up problem.

But because Both Sides, The Post editors mildly chide Pelosi for “opposing Mr. Trump’s wall in absolutist terms, calling it ‘immoral…'” and urge the Democrats to make a deal with the devil:

Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall, Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose. In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall — which would immediately be challenged in court by property owners along the border — Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million “dreamers,” young migrants primarily brought to this country as children by their parents. They might also protect tens of thousands of Haitians, Salvadorans and Hondurans whom the administration is preparing to expel after having lived legally in this country for years under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.

The difficulty, we understand, is that the president cannot be trusted to bargain in good faith. He agreed to a wall-for-dreamers deal last spring, only to reneg when his nativist aides and base objected. Now Mr. Trump cannot expect Democrats to deal unless he goes first, committing unequivocally to legalize the dreamers and TPS migrants in exchange for some border security.

It’s a long shot. But Democrats should leave themselves in a position to say yes if that long shot comes home. They would accomplish a great good for a huge number of blameless people — and for the country.

IMO, this was a defensible position last spring, when Trump seemed willing to exchange a path to citizenship for Dreamers for $25B for the wall. Sure, the wall was as dumb, racist and wasteful then as it is now. But giving relief to a million or so young people who are Americans in every sense but the official paperwork seemed a worthwhile trade to me.

But, as the WaPo editors themselves note, Trump killed that deal by demanding deep cuts to legal immigration, and he kicked off the current crisis by rejecting a deal he said he’d sign — all to appease unelected, racist screechers who have no legitimate role in driving policy.

The words “committing unequivocally” are utterly meaningless when applied to a pathological liar with no set principles nor an agenda beyond self-enrichment and soaking up real or pretend adulation from a motley assortment of white supremacists, plutocrat water-carriers and neocon warmongers. Trump has demonstrated this daily for going on two years now, most recently with a whipsaw walk-back on withdrawing troops from Syria.

Trying to make a deal with this particular devil isn’t a “long shot” — it’s political malpractice. We can’t trust Trump to follow through on any concessions he might offer to end the tantrum. And, to state the obvious, rewarding this extortion attempt will encourage further hostage-taking.

So far, the Democrats are hanging tough. But this editorial page caviling from The Post is a bad sign that the Both Sidesing is beginning in earnest. If you’re lucky enough to be represented by Democrats, maybe give their offices a call and thank them for not caving. If you (like me) are unfortunately represented by Republicans, tell them the Trump shutdown is hurting your community and they need to stop propping up the lying clown.

As for tonight’s address, I hear CNN at least is going to air Pelosi and Schumer’s rebuttal. I hope they’ll call out the lies and insist on a reality-based immigration debate. There’s no point in trying not to offend Trump’s idiotic voters, and there’s no obligation to “respect the office” when it’s held by a degenerate fraud.

Most Americans know Trump is a liar, so I’d go with that, plus maybe outline some actual solutions to real problems.






73 replies
  1. 1

    Reports are that all the networks and major cable will carry Pelosi and Schumer. Here’s another suggestion –

  2. 2
    trollhattan says:

    As I scribbled below, I want…nay, demand the response include “lie” and “liar.” No gloves, no rules, no quarter.

  3. 3
    ruemara says:

    I’ll tell you one thing I agree with Trump about. A good plurality of the media are the enemy of the people. They pull this nonsense but if the Dems did even a little of what’s suggested, watch the same folks roast them for being weak, feckless, corporatists. Which gets picked up by the purity left. It’s a vile echo chamber in favor of fascism.

  4. 4

    Ds should ignore any advice that comes from the media. They are the shadow Rs, and act as the opposition to D agenda and goals. They are not our friends and they are not neutral.

  5. 5
    chopper says:

    yes, let’s give the hostage takers what they want. they’ll totally stop taking hostages after that.

  6. 6
    catclub says:

    Rather than talk about the immorality of a wall, Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose.

    given the past bad faith, that ‘to achieve’ is carrying a lot of weight it does not deserve.

    In the most recent offer from Trump, he wanted even MORE immigration restrictions to go along with getting the wall.

  7. 7

    most recently with a whipsaw walk-back on withdrawing troops from Syria.

    So we’re not withdrawing, and Trumpian foreign policy remains yelling a lot, sitting on our ass, and tariffs?

    So far, the Democrats are hanging tough.

    This is in Nancy Pelosi’s hands, and that woman is harder than steel.

    this editorial page caviling from The Post is a bad sign that the Both Sidesing is beginning in earnest.

    It has been going on since day one. The American people don’t give a fuck what the pundits think. They heard Trump own the shutdown, and the polls reflect that.

    I hope they’ll call out the lies

    Based on how they handled that televised negotiation meeting, I’d say odds are good.

  8. 8
    catclub says:

    They buried the lede:

    The difficulty, we understand, is that the president cannot be trusted to bargain in good faith.

    Until that is fixed, no deal with him is possible. end of editorial.

  9. 9
    Barbara says:

    You don’t need to talk about morality. All you need to do is state that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants overstay a legal visa, that the vast majority of “terrorists” who try to enter the country do so through airports, that drugs similarly enter via highways that will not be walled up, that illegal border crossings are at practically an all-time low from when they first began being reported, and that true border security requires us to devote resources to technological solutions, which will be totally wasted if they build a wall at the southern border. Citing the failure of walls in history would be a good way to ridicule Trump as well. The Maginot line? The Great Wall of China?

  10. 10
    tobie says:

    I’m glad the Post notes this:

    The difficulty, we understand, is that the president cannot be trusted to bargain in good faith.

    I’m pissed the editorial board implies that Dems have been remiss in not bargaining with someone who does not keep his word. What do they want? Dems to negotiate with themselves?

  11. 11
    catclub says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    and Trumpian foreign policy remains yelling a lot, sitting on our ass

    I have to give credit. It also means making both Netanyahu and Erdogan angry (via incompetence) but I still approve of that part.

  12. 12
    Betty Cracker says:

    Ted Lieu is sick of the bullshit:

    I don’t think we’re backing down, folks. Good.

  13. 13
    Ohio Mom says:

    I am putting my trust in Pelosi to say just the right thing.

    I have a lot on my mind lately but every now and again enough space appears for me to ponder what the outcome of this convergence of shutdown, Trump tantrum/meltdown, Pelosi being reunited with her gavel, Democratic majority in the House, McConnell still leading the Senate, the almost empty Cabinet, RBG’s questionable health, and whatever else, might end up being.

    It’s scary. The only thing I know for certain is that future historians will be using the term “over determined.”

  14. 14
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    At this point, it would probably be useful and instructive if one of the authors of that WaPo editorial, just one, were FORCED to live in one of the detention centers Trump and KKKiersten are using to warehouse children on the border. Maybe also made to clean out the toilets.

    And do it for 160 days, to match how long the Trump administration has been in violation of the court order to reunite the families.

    THEN they can get back to me about “…the president cannot be trusted…” You know, once they have a better understanding of their own words.

  15. 15
    Elizabelle says:

    To cheer yourselves, and see the real world, look at the reader comments on the WaPost editorial Betty linked to. Sort them by “most liked.” You will see that jackals, even not from this blog, loom large in the real world. They see that crap proposal for what it is.

    Top rated WaPost reader comment: The dreamers deal was on the table for $20bn wall funding. Trump “negotiated” his way out of it. What makes you think he will accept to protect the dreamers in exchange for $5bn? By the way, even a single taxpayer dollar spent on the wall is wasted money.

    The second top rated WaPost reader comment: “A few billion dollars” to reward the most incompetent president in American history for his extortion attempt? Never. “A truly moral purpose” for the billions would be to help Puerto Ricans who are still suffering from the inattention of the Trump administration.

    The third top WaPost reader comment: Seriously, relying on Trump to make a good faith move is bound to fail. He simply can’t be trusted, and he doesn’t care about the efficient working of government, or the people being hurt by his shutdown. He’s getting his paycheck, so he doesn’t care.

    The fourth top WaPost reader comment: In this particular scenario, we need to remember the longstanding US policy: no negotiation with hostage takers and no payment of ransom demands. The policy is intended to remove the incentive for taking hostages in the future.

    The fifth top WaPost reader comment: What good is the wall going to do anyway?

    If you give money to Trump for his crumbling wall, he will only go back to demand for more money.

    Then, the next predator president like Trump in a few more years will want a border wall on the Canadian border. Then another president will want a seawall.

    We are the United States of America. We don’t build walls for fear of a racist bigot and his base. We build bridges to peace and prosperity for all.

    And the next: This may be one of the most idiotic editorials I’ve read in The Post in two years. President Trump has shown time and time again that he is completely untrustworthy. Why would Democrats negotiate with him on something so sensitive? This is a fools errand, and not even a child would do it – certainly not an intelligent one who’d already been burned by this “deal maker.”

    The next is much lengthier and absolutely the same point that many of you have been making here, for years. That this is theatre (although they don’t use that term.)

    Recall: it’s entirely possible Fred Fucking Hiatt wrote this Very Serious Person Opinion Piece. Recall also, he is part of the Village. Which does need to be smacked down, because it enables tyrants. Literally, tyrants.

    His readers see right through him. Some of them might be commenting while furloughed.

    Courage, jackals.

  16. 16

    @Barbara:I have addressed this twice before but equating visa overstays with undocumented immigrants is wrong.
    The specious statistics about visa overstays is brought to you by many of the same groups/thinktanks that demonize immigrants, this unfortunately includes the current DHS.
    1. They do not always exclude people who change their visa status legally while they are living in the United States, say for example someone who goes from a student visa to a work visa to a green card, all while living in the United States
    2. All visa overstays do not become immigrants
    3. Most visa overstays are from Canada
    4. The only way to get at all the visa overstays is to give T the authority to round up and demand papers from anyone who they think may have overstayed their visa. Live in a de facto police state.
    5. DHS is exaggerating this problem.
    This is a manufactured problem.

  17. 17
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    It’s all just balloon juice. President Coulter would never agree to Dreamer/DACA deal

  18. 18
    JPL says:

    I still want to see the first lady’s visa application.

  19. 19
    catclub says:

    @Elizabelle:

    This may be one of the most idiotic editorials I’ve read in The Post in two years.

    That is probably a pretty high bar to get over. I am not going to read two years of editorials to check it.

  20. 20
    Barbara says:

    @schrodingers_cat: I didn’t equate the two. I said that most undocumented immigrants in the country are visa overstays. You can quibble with the word “immigrant,” I agree, because many have no intent to stay permanently. People whose visa expires are technically undocumented. They are as undocumented as people who walk across the border without any visa. I have helped such people obtain legal status. You are not the only person on this board with experience in immigration issues.

  21. 21
    Elizabelle says:

    @catclub: That’s for damn sure.

  22. 22
    catbirdman says:

    Someone has to mention that the ecological damage of a much more extensive fence/wall would be immense. I and every ecologist I know are sick over the prospect of cutting off migration and dispersal for so many species across such a large area. We, as a species, look at the effects on ourselves first, always. Much later, we look at the horrific damage we inflicted upon our ecosystems and say, “Oh, yeah, maybe someone should have considered that, too.”

  23. 23
    catclub says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    I have addressed this twice before but equating visa overstays with undocumented immigrants is wrong.

    It appears you are saying that visa overstays are a much smaller proportion of undocumented immigration than ICE says, which means that illegal border crossers are a larger proportion of undocumented immigration than the usual statistics that are thrown around.
    (but the total of misidentified visa overstays + illegal border crossers is much smaller than the usual statistics thrown around)

    I think that no one is actually saying that (visa overstay) == (illegal immigration)
    they are instead saying that (visa overstay that IS convertied to undocumented immigration) >> illegal border crossing immigration
    Is that what you meant?

  24. 24

    @Barbara:

    People whose visa expires are technically undocumented

    Not if they change their status before the said status (and its associated visa) expires.

    You are not the only person on this board with experience in immigration issues.

    I have never claimed sole expertise on this issue. Just experienced it up close and personal.

    You can quibble with the word “immigrant,” I agree, because many have no intent to stay permanently.

    How is this a “quibble”, seems like it is a major distinction.

  25. 25
    hells littlest angel says:

    WaPo: Is it really a bad idea to negotiate with terrorists? Maybe Democrats should give it a try!

  26. 26
    Punchy says:

    Just how much of a wall will ~$5 billion give, anyway? Isn’t anything but a complete wall just art to be walked around? Nobody with a dog fences in their yard 90%. Nobody locks 3 of 4 car doors. So just WTF is this huge chunk of money going to do to stem anything on the border if it cant pay for the entire thing?

  27. 27
    Barbara says:

    @schrodingers_cat: “If” they change their status. That’s what I help them do. That’s a big obstacle in most cases because once your original visa expires it’s much harder to change categories. The word “immigrant” conveys an intent to stay permanently, but it is often used as a shorthand for a person who came to the U.S. from a foreign country other than as a tourist, and it is inaccurate when it is applied to a range of visa classes that are by definition short-term. Yet, many people who come on such short-term visas do change their minds and decide to stay or try to stay permanently. Yeah, I have upfront and close experience with this issue as well.

  28. 28
    The Moar You Know says:

    Give him a deal and he’ll just shoot all the hostages anyway. There is absolutely no point in even trying to negotiate with this guy, as half of NYC has found out the hard way.

  29. 29

    @catclub: The statistics on illegal/undocumented immigration are muddy at best and DHS statistics coming from Kelly and Nielsen’s DHS are not entirely trustworthy.

  30. 30

    @Barbara: I am saying that many immigrants are well aware of the change of status issue and take care not to let their status expire, when they change jobs or schools or programs.

    ETA: It is not clear to me whether DHS is counting these people who change their status legally before their old status expires in these “overstay” statistics.

  31. 31
    Barbara says:

    @The Moar You Know: Indeed, that’s what happened with DACA more than a year ago. Give Dems credit for not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  32. 32
    Barbara says:

    @schrodingers_cat: Yes, totally understand, many do, and therefore, never become undocumented to begin with, or at least are trying not to become undocumented, but that doesn’t change that those who are undocumented often enough were documented when they first arrived.

    ETA: Who knows what DHS is doing.

  33. 33

    @Barbara:

    Yet, many people who come on such short-term visas do change their minds and decide to stay or try to stay permanently

    Yes indeed, but that does not make them illegal or undocumented if they maintain lawful status through these changes.

  34. 34
    r€nato says:

    The Post published an editorial yesterday afternoon imploring Democrats to use their leverage in the border wall fight for a “truly moral purpose” — to protect the Dreamers.

    Man am I glad I went long on Go Fuck Yourself (ticker symbol GFY) recently.

    I was reminded last night how Pelosi led the fight in 2005 to kill W’s Social Security piratization plan. The strategy was to simply say NO and let the GOP plan collapse due to its contradictions and impracticality.

    Guess who editorialized repeatedly that the Dems needed to be ‘reasonable’ and offer their own SS plan? Yep, WaPo.

    This was the fight that led Pelosi to make the famous retort, “Never. Is never good enough for you?” when replying for the milliionth time to the question, “when are Dems going to offer their own plan?”

    So glad we have Ms. Pelosi back as Speaker and she will be sorely missed when she is gone from politics. She is our own Iron Lady.

  35. 35
    WaterGirl says:

    @Ohio Mom: Lying in bed last night, I thought about the Cuban Missile Crisis and about how, to my mind, it is starting to feel a bit like that. Like everything is hanging in the balance, but this time there is a rabid dog at the helm.

  36. 36
    different-church-lady says:

    TRUMP: “I WANT TO KILL ALL PUPPIES!”
    PELOSI: “Killing puppies is wrong.”
    WAPO: “Surely there’s a middle ground where we protect the puppies we already have but kill all puppies going forward…”

  37. 37
    gvg says:

    the problem with the shutdown is Trump doesn’t keep his word or even his contracts. The only way to open /fund the government is apparently to have enough votes to override a presidential veto.
    the smaller but still significant problem is the republican caucus has also not been so reliable.
    I don’t want to think about this but it might have to get really bad before enough votes are there.

  38. 38
    eclare says:

    @different-church-lady: That is a perfect analogy.

  39. 39
    Barbara says:

    @schrodingers_cat: I just said that very same thing above. You can also technically lose legal status because of delays beyond your control even though you have diligently tried to avoid that result. And then you have to fly to Canada (or somewhere else) so you can get your status normalized on re-entry when the new visa comes through.

  40. 40

    @Barbara:

    undocumented often enough were documented when they first arrived.

    Yes, that’s definitely possible.

  41. 41
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Ted Lieu is one of the Assistant Whips in the House, so what he says is going to be the general mood of the Democratic leadership.

  42. 42
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Barbara:

    IIRC, the majority of drugs are brought in via shipping container, which makes sense since they’re most often grown in South America and the Middle East. Shipping them via sea is far more practical than driving them anywhere.

  43. 43
    Chip Daniels says:

    But certainly giving him the Rhineland will satisfy his appetite!

  44. 44
    The Moar You Know says:

    I don’t want to think about this but it might have to get really bad before enough votes are there.

    @gvg: September 2019 is when the government runs out of money. Then nobody gets paid no matter what “executive orders” come down the pike. No fuel for fighter jets. No SS check. No Medicare payments. No nothing. That is how long this bullshit can be strung out.

    Dems need to be ready for that. A lot of them are going to want to cut a deal, because a vast number of people will get very, very hurt in a real shutdown/default. Dems must not cut that deal.

  45. 45
    Peale says:

    @catclub: Yep. Its never been “Dreamers vs. the wall”. Short of passing a law that would make the dreamers instant citizens, no one believes that Trump would honor anything. But its also been about building the wall + not allowing refugees to reunite with their families + allowing the president to declare on a whim that people on visas from country X are no longer validly in the country + changing birthright citizenship + instituting religious tests + changing the system so that Europeans are favored vs. allowing the Dreamers a chance to maybe stay in the country. That’s not a bargain. Its not “Dreamers vs. the Wall.”

  46. 46
    retr2327 says:

    Okay, time for a contrarian take: I think that if Trump claims a national emergency as a way to fund the wall, it will end up making it easier for Republicans to vote in favor of re-opening the Gov’t w/o any funding for the wall in those bills. Then, (hopefully) the Courts will toss the national emergency declaration in the garbage where it belongs. In short, he’s freeing the hostages in return for a bunch of newspaper cut up in the shape of dollar bills, another master class in bad negotiation.

  47. 47
    patroclus says:

    I’d take a Dream Act for a few billion for shoring up the existing fences deal. A long-term solution for the Dreamers is clearly worth a 1-year appropriation that can be reversed in the next Congress. But that isn’t on the table – Trump has ruled it out by stating that he’s going to await the USSC’s ruling on DACA. So unless Trump changes his mind, this editorial is inapplicable. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Pelosi and Schumer have already brought this up and had it rejected by the WH. So what’s the point of the editorial and why are they bashing Dems for not doing something they’ve already tried?

  48. 48
    Kay says:

    President Trump has invited representatives from cable and broadcast news channels to an off-the-record lunch at the White House ahead of his prime time speech Tuesday night, an address in which he is expected to frame his demand for border wall funding as a response to a national security and humanitarian crisis.

    Why did they agree to this? He’s working the refs behind closed doors and they’re willingly, eagerly lining up for it?

    Are they a fucking team? This is a team effort? How can this private meeting possibly serve the public interest?

    I’m not defending them anymore. They’re indefensible.

  49. 49
    Karen says:

    It’s worse than “bothsiderism.” It’s the familiar “Democrats have to be the better man.” The media treats Dems as an abused wife. If the Dems would only give Trump what he wants then he wouldn’t shut down the government. I am so sick of that!

  50. 50
    Kay says:

    Can a citizen please file a FOIA request to find out what Trump told media about the free campaign ad they’re giving him tonight? I’d like to know what the president tells his team members, privately.

  51. 51
    The Other Bob says:

    @patroclus: I would take his stupid wall for comprehensive immigration reform including protecting dreamers. The Feds waste billions every year on immoral shit like weapons we don’t need. The wall is a drop in the bucket. Plus, the wall won’t be bid out, let alone designed, litigated and built by 2020. Agree to the wall in exchange for immigration reform and then kill the wall in 2020.

  52. 52
    r€nato says:

    @The Moar You Know: there is no way it lasts that long. The damage will begin to affect the bank accounts of big GOP funders and if it gets that far, they will let their employees in Congress know that it’s time to talk to the Dems about impeachment.

  53. 53
    JR says:

    @Chip Daniels: “The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.”

  54. 54
    bemused says:

    One of our kids, age 39, is engaged to a lovely young woman in her 30’s from Hong Kong. They don’t know when she will get her visa interview, March at the earliest. When they decided they wanted to get married and live, here the visa interview took about 2-3 months to schedule but it’s been a longer and longer wait. We’ve been telling people that since trump adm is fucking up immigration, it’s affecting everyone who wants to immigrate here. Ignorant people don’t think the immigrant fiasco trumpco has made has anything to do with them or their families until it does.

  55. 55

    @Peale: Agreed. Those who say let us give T a wall for xyz have not been paying attention to the malicious and inhumane immigration policies of the current administration.

  56. 56
    Kay says:

    John Harwood
    ‏Verified account
    @JohnJHarwood
    Follow Follow @JohnJHarwood
    More
    what do the broadcast networks do tonight if the president just keeps talking?

    Nothing. They’ll do nothing. They’re paid tens of millions of dollars every year yet they have no idea how they can possibly run a news entity without allowing Trump to use them for propaganda. None of them have a single idea or solution, three years after the problem arose. In fact, it’w worse now than it was in 2016, but they are sticking to their “we refuse to try anything at all to help with this” stance.

    That’s why they’re worth tens of millions of dollars. Because they’re such excellent managers and great problem solvers.

    Nothing can be done. If a state actor wants to spew lies on their networks they must immediately surrender and give up.

  57. 57
    Josie says:

    @catbirdman:
    I don’t know about the rest of the border, but the ecosystem of the Rio Grande Valley and Northern Mexico is unique and fragile. It has already been negatively affected by fencing that serves no real purpose and will be nearly destroyed by the building of a wall. Using the excuse of national security, the government has managed to override all concerns about this problem.

  58. 58
    Karen says:

    @Kay: Let’s hope enough people don’t watch.

  59. 59
    J R in WV says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    IIRC, the majority of drugs are brought in via shipping container, which makes sense since they’re most often grown in South America and the Middle East. Shipping them via sea is far more practical than driving them anywhere.

    This is all absolutely true, yet I’ve seen video of brand new Ford Focus cars shipped in from plants in Mexico, with large amounts of a wide variety of drugs installed into the cars, probably at the factory.

  60. 60
    Chris says:

    This op-ed reminds me of a book I read last year about European reactions to the American Civil War. Specifically, it reminds me of one phrase, about diplomatic attempts to encourage an end to the war: “Since the South was clearly beyond reasoning, efforts to end the war focused on the North…”

    I suppose it’s inevitable that when you’re the only one of a pair with any kind of good faith or rationality, people will make you responsible for fixing everything. But good lord does it get tedious to hear.

  61. 61
    catclub says:

    @J R in WV: so the list of factory options is flexible.

  62. 62
    Chris says:

    @different-church-lady:

    FOX NEWS: “Why is the liberal WaPo siding with Pelosi?!?”

  63. 63
    Brachiator says:

    IMO, this was a defensible position last spring, when Trump seemed willing to exchange a path to citizenship for Dreamers for $25B for the wall.

    Wasn’t defensible then. It’s not defensible now. Trump’s immigration agenda is racist. You cannot allow pieces to be approved as part of a compromise.

  64. 64
    Barbara says:

    @Mnemosyne: Drugs are also flown in, and precursor chemicals are brought in by many different parties, who only need to bring in small quantities. FDA was recently given expanded authority to combat this kind of drug trafficking.

  65. 65

    @Brachiator: Thank You. I was pilloried for taking this stance after the shit-hole countries debacle last year. Was called Susan Sarandon and worse.

  66. 66
    VOR says:

    Making a deal with Trump is all but impossible. Dealing with designated negotiators, like VP Pence, is a waste of time because Trump won’t honor their agreements. Even negotiating directly with Trump is useless because he has a history of just changing his mind after giving his word. And even if a deal is agreed in writing, he can and will simply repudiate it. Look at the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris agreement, not paying contractors, and more.

    You cannot trust the President of the United States to honor an agreement. His word is no good.

  67. 67
    WaterGirl says:

    @Karen: Here’s what I wonder. Let’s say I have my DVR set to record some show that starts at 9pm ET on a channel that will be broadcasting Trump.

    Would I be counted as a viewer?

  68. 68
    VincentN says:

    I agree that Trump can’t be negotiated with and he is unlikely to grow a conscience over so many suffering federal employees, so what’s the endgame here? We wait for enough Congressional Republicans to agree to override a veto? That’s would probably require the economy to crash and/or riots in the streets.

    If that is what it will take then I’d like to know now so I can get prepared for the end times.

    Maybe I’m being too pessimistic but I don’t see a good way out of this mess.

  69. 69
    PaulB says:

    I’m reasonably certain that I read a news story where White House sources indicated that Trump has already unequivocally rejected the idea of tying DACA status to the wall. So not only is the WaPo editorial stupid, it’s out-of-date, as what they are advocating for is already off the table.

  70. 70
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Fred Hiatt should be forced to eat salted rat dicks for the rest of his miserable life.

  71. 71
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Brachiator: I agree Trump’s immigration policies are racist, but I don’t think the Democrats were wrong to consider exchanging wall funds for Dreamer citizenship, as they did last year when the Republicans had complete control of Congress and before Trump blew up the negotiations. You can knock down a wall, but you can’t undo the horrendous cruelty of deporting a million-plus young Americans to what are, to them, foreign countries. It’s monstrous. Of course, that’s all a moot argument now — the Dems are no longer powerless, and Trump has ceded control of the immigration debate to Ann Coulter.

  72. 72
    Brachiator says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I agree Trump’s immigration policies are racist, but I don’t think the Democrats were wrong to consider exchanging wall funds for Dreamer citizenship, as they did last year when the Republicans had complete control of Congress and before Trump blew up the negotiations. You can knock down a wall, but you can’t undo the horrendous cruelty of deporting a million-plus young Americans to what are, to them, foreign countries.

    Trump was never going to make a deal to protect the Dreamers. He is a racist. He never “ceded” control of the immigration debate to Ann Coulter. He simply let her remind him to release his inner monster.

    Trump has consistently tried to “purify” America by demanding that refugees who have been here for years return home, by demonizing and hunting down undocumented immigrants, by seeking ways to de-legitimize people who have already become citizens, by pushing for patently racist immigration requirements, and by isolating Dreamers.

    It is all of a piece. It is pointless to single out the pain that Dreamers feel and ignore the horror inflicted on others.

  73. 73
    Jinchi says:

    Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1 million “dreamers,” young migrants primarily brought to this country as children by their parents.

    This argument has always annoyed me. The “Dreamers” are only at risk because Trump decided to strip them of the protections that Obama already granted them. It’s a solution to a problem that Trump literally created, in exchange for $5 billion dollars to solve a problem that exists only in Trump’s head.

    Trump took the Dreamers hostage and the Democrats were playing on dangerous ground offering to pay ransom. Since then Trump has taken literal hostages, ripping children from their mothers arms at the border in order to deter future asylum seekers. He has tried to strip temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of others in order to deport them as well, tearing apart American families in the process. He wants to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. And of course he has openly declared “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

    He is a bigot and a liar who has repeatedly acted against American immigrants, often vindictively. There is no negotiating with him, it will only encourage him to attack more people.

Comments are closed.