​Is The Holy Grail of an Immigration Deal Tax Reform?

​How badly does the voting public at large want a grand deal on the Dreamers v. Border Security trade-off? Roll Call suggests the polling shows not very much, but spend much of their time interviewing hard-left Democrats from Congress who of course will never accept anything less than full citizenship for Dreamers. And the few GOP they seem to quote are dead set against any sort of amnesty, like Rep Steve King, for example.

So the question becomes: what would the political effects be (especially next year's mid-terms) of a deal? What would Trump supporters do if they felt that the president and the GOP by extension had given away far too much in return for keeping the 800,000 odd illegals who none the less were brought to the country as minors, sometimes babies?

And will Democrat base voters throw out any moderates who vote for a deal that does not promise permanent resident status or citizenship and provides money for non-wall border security measures?

Because if that is truly the case then no compromise is possible between the two parties, or even within the parties on many issues. And that means continued delay and gridlock at the legislative level, because Congress will keep punting on laws they fear will cause them to lose their jobs. And the swamp gets deeper.

So are a clear majority of voters in America ready for some sort of compromise between amnesty (let's call it what it is) and increased immigration enforcement especially through mechanisms like E-Verify? And perhaps changes to the tax code that would discourage businesses from hiring illegals while encouraging them to hire legal or native workers?

There's one factor that may weigh heavily on this question. That always weighs heavily on questions like these. The economy of course. And that means tax reform is becoming the only holy grail left for Trump to try and grab from behind the crenellated ramparts of D.C. law-making. If he and Congress can get some sort of tax reform passed that boosts an economy that is already doing fine, the divisions around the immigration issue may lessen just enough to allow a deal to be made.

But this may not be an ideal outcome at all. Think of Reagan in 1986 and his attempt in tandem with Congress to end growing illegal immigration by granting a one-time amnesty. He was able to do it because he was Reagan, but also because of the booming economy in the mid-eighties. And it ended up merely punting the problem AND creating a massive incentive for illegals to keep coming as well as for businesses to keep hiring them.

Will it happen all over again some 31 years later? Imagine a slimish tax reform gets passed. Then a deal on border security (slim as well) and amnesty (a little plumper) gets done. GDP growth soars to near 4%. Trump does a ticker tape parade on 5th Avenue.

And attracted by the booming economy, illegals start crossing the border in rapidly increasing numbers in the last years of Trump's second term. Sound familiar?

Posted by Keeley at September 18, 2017 6:46 PM
Comments
Comment #419942

NYT reporting Trump Campaign Manager Manafort was informed by the Mueller team that he should expect to be indicted. CNN reporting Manafort was wiretapped through FISA warrants both before and after the election.

Things are getting hot for the nest of crooks and traitors at the White House.

Posted by: phx8 at September 18, 2017 9:30 PM
Comment #419992
behind the crenellated ramparts of D.C. law-making.

No luck yet, but I was hoping this phraseology would lead to unmasking “Keeley”.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 21, 2017 11:57 AM
Comment #420009

What does that have to do with immigration, phx8? What sentence is true? Either? Neither? My guess is neither, considering your track record.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 22, 2017 9:53 AM
Comment #420438

thanks for the good information

Posted by: Titan Gel Bandung at October 5, 2017 11:58 AM
Post a comment