Trump Blasts Bipartisan Immigration Compromise As "Very, Very Weak"

Hours after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said  the Senate would act on Congress’s immigration compromise as soon as they figure out where, exactly, Trump stands on the issue, the president has supplied what appears to be a definitive answer...

And it’s that the deal worked out by a bipartisan group of senators - a deal that was presented to Trump during the meeting last week where he allegedly referred to El Salvador, Haiti and a host of African countries as “shitholes” - falls far short of what Trump’s base believes should happen.

The bipartisan bill will purportedly include provisions that enshrine the DACA protections for illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as minors in exchange for funding for increased border security. The White House has asked for $18 billion  to begin construction on Trump's promised border wall.

Trump elaborated on his position regarding Congress’s immigration reform proposal during an interview with Reuters published Wednesday afternoon. The interview was conducted earlier this week.

 

Trump

In the interview, Trump said he thinks a deal on immigration is still possible. “Time is running out.” He added that a government shutdown “could happen” at the end of the week, insisting Democrats would take the blame if it happens - though Trump did not rule out signing a short-term spending measure by a Friday deadline to prevent a shutdown.

Trump abruptly canceled protections for the so-called “Dreamers” back in September, leaving 690,000 mostly Hispanic adults vulnerable to deportation. However, the White House said earlier this week that it would continue processing requests for protected status while several lawsuits wend through the legal system. A judge from the ninth circuit earlier this month ruled that the protections must remain in place until the legal issue is resolved.

They were initially slated to expire in March.

Trump has said he is open to finding a solution to help the Dreamers. But he said he was less than pleased with the compromise plan presented to him by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Dick Durbin.

Durbin has been a target of Trump’s ire since he told reporters that he heard Trump make the infamous “shithole” remark during a meeting - something that Senator Tom Cotton, who was also present, has denied. However, Graham intimated to a group of reporters that Trump did say something wildly inappropriate along those lines, though he declined to confirm the specific remark.

 

 

Trump told Reuters he called Cotton, David Perdue and Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte to join him to hear the proposal at the White House, describing them as "smart guys, with more of a conservative bent, more of a bent like I have."

He ultimately agreed with Cotton and Perdue, who felt the compromise was too weak.

“It’s horrible for the security of our country,” Trump said, noting there was not enough funding for a wall he has promised to build on the U.S.-Mexican border, a project opposed by Democrats.

The proposal was “very, very weak” on curbing visas for extended family members of immigrants, and failed to end a diversity visa lottery program.

“Lindsey - he meant well - but I said, ‘Well, how many Republicans agree with this?'” Trump said.

Trump blamed Durbin for leaking the language he used in the meeting, a disclosure that prompted critics to denounce Trump as a racist, an accusation he denied.

“I’ve lost all trust in Durbin,” Trump said.

Trump’s hard line on immigration famously helped set him apart during the early days of the 2016 race. His proposal to build a border wall ended becoming one of the most emblematic policy proposals, inspiring chants of “build the wall” at his rallies.

However, his executive orders seeking to limit immigration from several Muslim majority countries have repeatedly met with challenges from the courts. His most recent order involves using more targeted criteria to stop travelers from six of the original “Muslim ban” countries plus North Korea and Iran.

Comments

Endgame Napoleon Lost in translation Wed, 01/17/2018 - 20:38 Permalink

I say cut new legal immigration to 1/4th of the current amount, letting in only merit-based applicants with TRULY rare skills and pro-Western ideals—pro-Western enough to leave family behind without chain migration to start a new life in a country that is based on constitutional liberty, not on the ideals of the country they left.

- no illegal immigration — Take illegals back home immediately upon catching them, nicely, like Australia does it, without costly court proceedings. 

~ no womb-productivity-based welfare that covers rent and groceries and child-tax-credit welfare up to $6,444 until the RepubliCONs doubled it, which helps immigrants to undercut underemployed, job-seeking citizens. 

In reply to by Lost in translation

Endgame Napoleon wisehiney Wed, 01/17/2018 - 20:28 Permalink

These post-tax-cut promises from corporations on jobs mean NOTHING to citizens if 800,000 DACAs get amnesty, particularly when their families are included, bringing the number to millions of job seekers.

When 10,000 jobs are added, everyone cheers, but we still have 790,000 DACAs and millions of their relatives to employ before we even get to the 94 million citizens out of the workforce. In effect, no jobs opened up for citizens.

This amnesty proposal includes many 35-and-younger DACAs and family members who are willing to work for low wages that undercut American job seekers, because they do not need higher wages when US-born children guarantee them free food, subsidized rent and refundable child tax credits that maxed out at $6,444 until doubled by the RepubliCON tax cut.

Illegal aliens with kids get all of these welfare layers to boost up low wages as long as they stay below the earned-income limit for welfare and the cut off for child tax credits.

With DACAs and their families in the job-seeker pool, we need FAR, FAR more jobs.

Hey RepubliCONs: Deplorables are not operating on theory. We  know from seeing it first hand, time after time, when jumping through umpteen hoops to get low-wage jobs. Employers often seek a very un-diverse majority-minority diversity, especially when so many illegal / legal immigrants have layers of unearned monthly income and tax welfare for womb productivity that makes low wages acceptable. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=breitbart%20illegal%20immigrants%20nake…

https://www.google.com/search?q=washimtoj%20tomes%20illegal.alien%20tax…

https://www.google.com/search?q=daily%20caller%20illegal.alien%20tax%20…

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrant-Househol…

https://cis.org/Child-Tax-Credits-Illegal-Immigrants

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-cr…

In reply to by wisehiney

LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:47 Permalink

"[Trump] added that a government shutdown 'could happen' at the end of the week, insisting Democrats would take the blame if it happens..."

Why should Democrats get all the credit for a good thing like shutting down the federal government?  In all seriousness, Trump has completely lost touch with his base.  Those of us who voted for him could give two shits if the government shuts down for a while to put leverage on Congress doing something, anything that he promised in the campaign.

LetThemEatRand serotonindumptruck Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:55 Permalink

Sadly, I don't even buy the idea that he is just doing what his masters tell him.  He just plain lied to his voters.  He's a salesman.  Not that many of us bought what he was selling, but I for one want my hour back for bothering to vote for him just in case he was for real.  At least if Hillary had won this place would be a lot more entertaining and we wouldn't have to put up with people still defending this guy.

In reply to by serotonindumptruck

MEFOBILLS LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 19:03 Permalink

Does Trump have all of his people in place in government?  No

Did Trump ride to power on the back of a well defined political movement.  No

Is Trump under threat of his life.  Yes - He thinks so, which is why he eats McDonalds.

Actually, if you look at in terms of the things he has destroyed, which needed destroying, it is a pretty good record for one man without party support.

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

LetThemEatRand MEFOBILLS Wed, 01/17/2018 - 19:12 Permalink

"Does Trump have all of his people in place in government?"

Are there more Goldman Sachs people he has yet to appoint? 

I get it.  It could be worse and there are few things he's done that are an improvement over Cankles.  But the bottom line is that the status quo remains on almost everything of real importance, from the foreign wars to the Fed to NSA spying to civil forfeiture to constant saber rattling with nuclear powers that are of no threat to us.  And none of these things are because some "other Team" or even his Team are blocking him from making a change.  These are his policies.   I'm not going to be a cheerleader for a guy who lied about the things that matter most, just because he's better than the other guy.

In reply to by MEFOBILLS

Scanderbeg LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 20:06 Permalink

Fair enough. But ultimately the biggest benefit of Trump is simply moving the overton window further right and actually making any of this discourse possible.

Going from the "Diversity is our strength" mantra of the past twenty years to "Fuck those shitholes" while almost singlehandedly demolishing the MSM's credibility is a massive shift.

Someone like Rand Paul is great and far better on policy but the media would have gotten to him just like Romney and deep down you know it.

It was always going to take someone with Trumps personal resources, notariety, boorishness and uncompromising attitude to break through.

Immigration is still the most important issue and there's really no comparison between Trump and what someone like Cankles would be doing. That's why he was elected. 

Trump ran on a pro Zionist platform and everyone here expecting him to make radical changes to the financial system or overall U.S posture is simply dellusional.

He is a moderate nationalist who was preferable to the opposition candidate. Nothing more.

He has poor understanding of history, a developers sensibilty on economics and is reflexively Hawkish but we all knew that already.

 

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

vic and blood hxc Wed, 01/17/2018 - 21:56 Permalink

What does the "2-year" remark mean? LTER was here when you were still in juvenile hall. As far as "milque toast semi-libertarian", LTER was far right of Trump until Trump became a reborn conservative. 

Just how long will Trump need to take down "the illuminati", if such a group can be positively identified? I confess that I was unaware that it was his top priority. Trump has not yet succeeded in taking down some milque toast prog politicians, though he is holding his own against the milque toast media.

Trump may have enchanted you with his vulgar bluster but I am afraid that he will turn out to be your milque toast semi-statist. That being said, I am somewhat pleased so far, but have reasonably low expectations for him. So how does this place compare to the vulgarian milque toast favorite, Infowars?

In reply to by hxc

Endgame Napoleon LetThemEatRand Wed, 01/17/2018 - 20:49 Permalink

Well, some of the Trumpian Deplorables may think a government shutdown impacts earned Social Security retirement checks. 

Hey Swampians at $175k: You only pay SS tax at 7.65% up to $127,200 of your salaried income due to the SS cap, whereas many Deplorables paid 15.3% on every penny earned in self-employment, while earning far below Swampian wages in net income. Other Deplorables paid 7.65% SS tax on every dime of income when employed by others. 

Some Swampians regard the 100% free monthly welfare that covers rent and grocery expenses of part-time workers who stay below the earned-income limit for welfare and the refundable child tax credits up to $6,444 until doubled by Swampians that go to citizens, legal and illegal immigrant parents who do not pay a dime of income tax as equivalent to contributory SSA. 

Many Trump voters do not; make no mistake about it. It was part of why Trump won, his understanding of that distinction between a benefit we paid 15.3% of income for and freebies that help illegal immigrants and single moms undercut Americans who get no welfare to boost up low wages in the labor pool. 

In the Nineties, the goverment shut down did not impact those programs, but maybe, MSM anchors do not remember.

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

Endgame Napoleon GoingBig Wed, 01/17/2018 - 21:02 Permalink

Obama was born in Hawaii. His father who did not raise him was a foreign-born noncitizen. His mother was as American as apple pie—DNA-wise—with a father who served in WWII and a bank manager mother. Obama’s  mother, however, had an infatuation with globalism, marrying several foreign men. This does not in any way mean that Obama is not American. People who are born to an American citizen, even when born overseas (unlike Obama, who was born in Hawaii), are American citizens. I do not like Obama’s Clintonesque policies one bit, but please, he is as American as any of us. Unfortunately, you cannot get away from voting for Bill Clinton’s policies, no matter which party you vote for. Witness the doubled, refundable child-tax-credit welfare, allocated even to illegal aliens, and buttressing the status quo econpmy, where part-time service sector jobs with low wages are augmented by monthly welfare and tax welfare for single moms and hordes of immigrants, both legal and illegal. It is pure Clintonian neoliberalism in a Fake RepubliCON wrapper. 

In reply to by GoingBig

pc_babe Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

dude ... didnt you say just a few short days ago that you'd sign whatever they brought, 'cuz you respected and trusted them.

fyi ... they hate and don't respect you.

This is them disssssssing you. Get it?

headless blogger Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:52 Permalink

There is so much that can be done about illegal immigrants and if the laws were followed they wouldn't need to build a wall. What we might need is people who want to move here who are innovative and have money. We don't need anymore poor. We have enough, just look at the homeless on the streets. 

And now these people are tying up the court system with their lawsuits. 

 

MEFOBILLS headless blogger Wed, 01/17/2018 - 19:09 Permalink

What we might need is people who want to move here who are innovative and have money.

 

The indigenous population has plenty of creativity, and any sovereign country has all the credit it needs.  

This idea that you need foreign money is pure bull shit.  This idea that foreigners possess some sort of genius we don't have is pure bull shit.

Most people are immigrated for corporations to take wage arbitrage.  Most immigrants do it for their own economic self interests.  

Even high tech uses the H1B immigrants to screw over American labor.

Stop with the "move here" nonsense.  The U.S. did fine in the past with its own people, from a much smaller population base.

Immigrating a bunch of dindus and turd worlders IS NOT HELPFUL for the future, and causes social friction.  It LOWERS social and intellectual capital.   

There is NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION, not matter what you hear from brain dead economists.  More people is not better.

In reply to by headless blogger

Captain Nemo d… MEFOBILLS Wed, 01/17/2018 - 19:41 Permalink

Economic justification?!? It's capitalism. The thingy you fought to defend all over the world. Perhaps you did not understand that capitalism has winners and losers. The survival of the fittest and so on. They made more money than you. They won. You lost. They pay to make the rules they want. Now you turn socialist and try to control who they can pay their money to, to work for them? You want workers to unite and vote for a candidate who will restrict the ability of companies to import cheap labor? What next? Will you be asking workers to unite and ask for living wages. Oh the horrors!

In reply to by MEFOBILLS

Captain Nemo d… MEFOBILLS Wed, 01/17/2018 - 20:08 Permalink

Even with industrial capitalism there will be those much richer than the rest. Companies, of course, will be much richer.  The question then is not debt instruments. It is a fundamental issue of what restrictions can you place on a person to spend their money the way they want and whether it is restricted by national boundaries. American products are probably expensive enough that even if other countries do not put tariffs not many people could afford them even given their higher quality so it is not just an issue of unfair,  asymmetric, deals and regulations. On the other hand there are many countries in the world that could produce goods much cheaper, even if there were no government subsidies.

Can companies pay workers whatever they want as long as workers accept it?

Can they fund campaigns?

Can they get a return for funding campaigns?

Can they hire the workers they want?

Can they outsource?

Can they be required to not pay workers whatever they want in other parts of the world?

Is it okay to put trade restrictions that restrict the movement of goods?

Is it okay to put restrictions on the movement of humans?

Is human liberty worth less than the freedom of a beer-can to move across borders?

If yes, then why assume those with money will care for your liberties?

You cannot go around fighting all over the world for access to their resources under the guise of protecting free trade under "freedom" and "liberty" and then claim the movement of people should be severely restricted.

 

In reply to by MEFOBILLS

TuPhat Wed, 01/17/2018 - 18:56 Permalink

After I figured out that Trump is a swamp critter I still thought he might accomplish at least a little of what he promised.  Color me disappointed.  Again.

MK ULTRA Alpha Wed, 01/17/2018 - 19:00 Permalink

This is a race war issue started by Obama. Now that the whites aren't going to be destroyed, the Democratic Communist Party plan to flood the country with hate filled, anti-white people of color is being over turned, we can see how the people of color are acting and the white communist are acting, they planned to destroy the whites and they're telling it to our faces now.

Constant calls to kill off the whites is being documented as evidence of what the plan was and now with the change in political direction, we can all see what's what.

They want to kill us because we are white. This is the legacy of Obama.