The curse of ‘the deal’
In official Washington today, everything has to be part of a “deal.” The problem for Dreamers is not that the president doesn’t “love these kids”; he has told us that he does. It is not that their case for continued protection against deportation lacks merit; it does not. The problem is that Congress has not agreed to President Donald Trump’s “deal.”
In a 3:52 a.m. tweet on Feb. 13, the president gave his view: “Negotiations on DACA have begun. Republicans want to make a deal and Democrats say they want to make a deal. Wouldn’t it be great if we could finally, after so many years, solve the DACA puzzle. …”
There is no “DACA puzzle.” DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, was put in place by an executive order of President Barack Obama to protect from deportation undocumented children who were younger than 16 when their parents brought them to this country, prior to June 2007. On Sept. 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program was being rescinded effective March 5.
While professing admiration and love for these kids, President Trump has made clear that he sees them as a bargaining chip in his efforts to make other immigration-related demands. He is willing to see them deported unless Congress agrees to money for the “wall” on our southern border, and substantial restrictions on future legal immigration. His proposed “deal” was defeated in the Senate earlier this month, 60-39.
There are disadvantages to having a president who considers himself a master deal-maker. Every issue is seen in terms of its potential for gaining leverage in a negotiation.
As the president points out in his book, The Art of the Deal, in the business world, deal-making is of the essence. Each party is looking out for his or her selfinterest, and those interests must be satisfied for a deal to be made.
In the public sphere, deal-making should not be the only way to get things done. The “public interest” should prevail. If the public interest is served by enacting a proposal, e.g. continuing legal status for Dreamers, then it should be enacted not as part of a “deal,” but as a stand-alone proposal.
It is sad that the president can laud the merits of providing legal status for Dreamers, while also being willing to remove that legal status and deport them if Congress refuses to accept his “deal.”