Schumer: Border Wall Off the Table Going Into DACA Talks with Trump

[Geee]

PJ Media

WASHINGTON -- Ahead of his dinner with President Trump and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) this evening, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor this morning that he sees "a sign of good faith" from the White House going into discussions about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
"I really believe Congress wants to take care of it. We discussed that also today, and Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I. And I said if we can get something to happen, we're going to sign it and we're going to make a lot of happy people," Trump said after an Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders last week.

Asked if he wants to see a pathway to citizenship for DACA beneficiaries, Trump replied, "That's going to be discussed later, but we want to talk about legal right now. We haven't discussed that.

[Draggingtree]

What in the world is happening with Trump, DACA, and the border wall?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye    September 14, 2017 at 10:21am

A deal by any other name…

Late Wednesday night, Democrats Sen. Schumer and White House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced they’d reached a deal with Trump on DACA and that funding for Trump’s campaign cornerstone, the border wall, was not part of the agreement, though they’d agreed to include some form of beefed up border security.

Trump and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders both denied any deal was made.

(more…)   http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/09/what-in-the-world-is-happening-with-trump-daca-and-the-border-wall/#more-227058

[Valin]

Deal or no deal? Wall or no wall? Conservative or no conservative?

Paul Mirengoff

September 14, 2017

 

Late last night, in an update to a post about DACA, I noted that President Trump reportedly had just made a deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi regarding DACA-style legislation. The alleged deal would protect the roughly 690,000 people covered by the current DACA program (but not, I take it, other “dreamers”) and would include a package of border security measures, excluding the wall, that’s “acceptable to both sides.”

This would be a good deal for Democrats. It would put DACA on a sound, permanent legal basis without giving Trump his wall or any other security provision deemed too harsh (i.e. effective) by Chuck and Nancy.

The White House, though, is denying that it struck such a deal. Sort of.

 

(Snip)

 

We may be seeing the emergence of the real Trump presidency. Keep conservatives happy through judicial appointments and the like (but can we be entirely confident that Trump’s new friend Chuck won’t have a say in the next Supreme Court selection?). Keep the nationalist base happy by attacking the media and through gestures like pardoning Sheriff Joe. Steer a middle course — neither hawkish nor dovish — on foreign and national security policy. Govern as a centrist (and at times from the center-left) on domestic policy issues.

If this turns out to be the case, no one who paid attention to Donald Trump pre-2015 should be surprised.

 

 

[Draggingtree]

A DACA Deal
by ROBERT VERBRUGGEN October 2, 2017, Issue
What Republicans should bargain for President Trump has announced the end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program his predecessor initiated by executive order in 2012. About 800,000 “Dreamers” — people brought to the U.S. illegally before they were 16 years old — have work permits through the program that, until now, were renewable in two-year increments. The government will still honor the existing permits, and permits expiring before March 5 can be renewed one last time. But thereafter, permits will start expiring unless Congress passes a law saying otherwise.

 The Dreamers will not be summarily rounded up and deported if Trump follows through on terminating the program. (There is considerable doubt he will: Almost immediately after the announcement, the supposed dealmaker undermined his own negotiating position, tweeting that he’d “revisit this issue” if the legislature didn’t act.) But they will find it hard to live normal lives, as they will be legally subject to deportation in the event they come to the authorities’ attention.      https://www.nationalreview.com/node/451350