If Trump is such a great deal-maker, let him prove it by negotiating new immigration plan
One of Donald Trump’s chief claims to the presidency was that he is one of the greatest deal maker in the history of the universe. So far, there has been scant evidence of that.
The trade deal with Canada and Mexico was renegotiated. But it languishes, with no immediate prospect of it being ratified by Congress. Other than that, there have been erratic, unilateral presidential decisions and tweets, designed to put pressure on others, internationally and domestically. But no deals.
Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t Trump prove his deal-making chops on his signature domestic issue — immigration?
Trump talks and postures a lot on immigration, giving a big speech Thursday mostly about moving to a system based more on skills and economic needs and less on family unification.
But getting something done, big or small, requires making a deal. Democrats control the House. The filibuster gives them the equivalent of a veto in the Senate.
Trump can’t muscle or tweet his way through or around that. And no feasible 2020 outcome would give him a filibuster-proof Senate.
Senate got close in 2007
The framework of a deal already exists. It’s what was negotiated by former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2007.
The basic bargain was this: Democrats win the argument about the past. Republicans win the argument about the future.
Put another way: Democrats get amnesty for those currently in the country illegally. Republicans get the border security and enforcement provisions they want, along with a change in priority for future legal immigration.
Under the Kennedy-Kyl legislation, those currently in the country illegally would have received a new visa enabling them to stay indefinitely. Ultimately, they could convert those into green cards and a path to citizenship.
The politics haven't changed much
Border resources would have been amplified and employers required to use an enhanced E-Verify system to electronically confirm work eligibility. Family-based immigration would have been restricted to spouses and children.
Future legal immigration would be based largely on skills, but there would be a generous, temporary guest worker program for the low-skilled.
Read more commentary:
My Sharpie marker might be the only thing keeping migrant mothers and children together
I toured an immigration detention center. The prison-like atmosphere was mind-numbing.
An illegal immigrant killed my daughter. Trump's right — we must complete the border wall.
In Congress, the bargain was undercut by liberal senators eroding the guest worker provision, which the labor unions opposed.
But the deal was ultimately overwhelmed by opposition to amnesty by the grassroots right.
The politics haven’t changed much. And the grassroots right that opposes amnesty constitutes the most reliable element of Trump’s base.
Asylum-seekers have created a real crisis
But the situation at the border has changed, with the flood of asylum-seekers with children swamping the federal government’s ability to cope with them.
This is a genuine crisis. It requires immediate action. And that necessitates a deal.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham has introduced a bill to address the crisis, which Arizona Sen. Martha McSally has cosponsored. It would:
Expand the capacity to process asylum applications in the Central American countries producing the flood.
Increase the period of time that families could be detained together from 20 days to 100 days.
Provide additional immigration judges to process claims before release.
Although the Trump administration wants to force changes in asylum procedures as part of a disaster relief bill, Democrats are unlikely to go along. And there are enough Republicans who represent areas in line to get disaster relief funding that Democrats are likely to prevail.
Offer the same bargain for a smaller deal
A small deal on asylum reform would require the same basic bargain: Democrats win the past; Republicans the future. Amnesty for future changes.
In the case of changes for asylum-seekers, that would probably mean legalization and a path to citizenship for "dreamers," young adults brought to the United States illegally as children.
That Trump can talk tough on immigration is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether he has the political will or moxie to get something done about it.
Robert Robb editorial columnist for The Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared. Follow him on Twitter @RJRobb.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: If Trump is such a great deal-maker, let him prove it by negotiating new immigration plan
