On the budget and the border, let’s make a deal – Washington Examiner

Washington is emerging from the holiday season consumed by the ongoing government shutdown. President Trump wants $5 billion for a border wall, Democrats don’t, and neither side appears willing to blink.

The only thing that will save the country from a damaging and prolonged shutdown (although note that there are arguments for letting this happen) is a solution that will allow both sides to save face, a compromise that gives everyone something they want. If both sides are willing, they may be able to move beyond shutdown brinkmanship and give the nation an example of serious leadership that places the common good ahead of political gamesmanship.

So what’s to be compromised? If Trump really wants his money for a border barrier, then an appropriate compromise should involve something Democrats have long demanded. According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, Trump is open-minded about a compromise that creates certainty for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, whose fate currently hangs on a lawsuit in which their cause is likely to lose.

A swap of a DACA statute in exchange for a paltry $5 billion in border funding would be a perfectly appropriate compromise for both parties, given the circumstances. Previously, Trump had been hoping to trade DACA for a broad merit-based immigration system that Democrats strongly oppose.

Now that his party has lost the House, Trump needs to approach Democrats with a more practical deal that their base will be willing to swallow. It is our belief that Democratic leaders, who view the wall as a silly distraction, will be able to impress their base by attaining DACA from Trump. Although Democrats are also opposed to Trump’s fence, the few billion dollars to construct it is, at worst, a small waste.

A border wall or fence or slats has never been a complete solution to the nation’s problem with lawless migration. But it’s not going to hurt. A wall or fence of some kind (the controversy over its precise nature strikes us as ridiculous) is already authorized in current law. Hard-to-scale fences have seriously impeded illegal migration where they have been erected (in San Diego and Yuma, Ariz., for example).

And perhaps most importantly, if border barriers help successfully funnel asylum seekers to legal points of entry, they will be doing everyone a big favor. It will reduce the lethal dangers that honest border crossers are facing and save the Border Patrol the immense hassle and danger involved in rounding them up.

Democrats tell their supporters that they strongly support DACA in principle. It would help law-abiding U.S. residents who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, through no fault of their own. These people know no other country and would be seriously at a loss if forced to go back and live in Mexico or Central America.

The public supports a measure to give legal status to law-abiding people in this situation. Currently, they are protected by an Obama-era executive order whose legality is questionable, and the matter hinges on a court decision. DACA beneficiaries will not be safe until a statute is created to deal with their situation.

Instead of framing the government shutdown as a huge obstacle that cannot be surmounted, we would prefer to frame it as an ideal place for Trump and Democrats to make a bipartisan deal that everyone can be happy with. Democrats will be able to show their base that they got DACA from Trump, of all people. Trump will be able to show his base that he got some funding to build several miles of border fencing. Everyone saves face, everyone wins.