Our view: Trump’s racist remarks roil immigration deal
If the Trump administration wants to tighten up the nation’s immigration system, there are plenty of places to start. One is to deport people who come to the United States illegally and commit serious crimes. Another is to target people who come on temporary visas, fail to leave when the visas expire, and melt into the population — a group that makes up more than 40% of undocumented immigrants.
But smart changes do not begin with forcing out immigrants, such as nearly 200,000 Salvadorans who’ve been welcomed in the country for 17 years and who are primarily productive, taxpaying residents. Or, for that matter, the 800,000 “dreamers,” who were brought here illegally as children.
With so many people’s futures at stake, there are obvious deals to be made. But just when such an agreement seemed to be within reach, President Trump’s vulgar slur against some immigrants at a White House meeting Thursday blew up negotiations and spurred global condemnation.
As the world now knows, during a discussion about the future of immigration from Haiti, El Salvador and some African countries, Trump questioned why the U.S. was letting in people from “shithole countries” rather than nations such as Norway, according to Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who attended the Oval Office meeting.
Racist language of any sort does not belong in the White House and demeans this country’s history as a beacon of hope and a haven for even the most downtrodden. That welcoming culture has made America diverse, economically strong and powerful.
Trump tweeted Sunday that an immigration deal is “probably dead,” but if a compromise is still possible — and it should be — it could combine changes sought by each side.
For Republicans, it could include more money to strengthen southern border security, including electronic surveillance, drones and physical barriers where needed; a gradual move away from immigration based on family relationships toward immigrants selected for skills the U.S. needs; and a better system to spot and remove those elusive foreigners who overstay visas.
Democrats would get full-scale protection and an eventual path to legality for the 800,000 dreamers, along with a permanent reprieve for Salvadorans, Haitians and others who were repeatedly given “temporary” protection from disasters in their home countries.
At some point, the meaning of temporary gets overridden by the reality of extensions, which these people relied on as they put down roots. Should they be punished for relying on the government’s actions? Should the Salvadorans be forced to return to a place where, the State Department warned last week, “violent crime … is common” and “gang activity … is widespread.”
The contours of a bipartisan compromise on immigration are clear — but that won’t happen if the president, elected in part because of his supposed deal-making prowess, continues to roil the waters with racist rants.