The Corner

Politics & Policy

On the Scope of Trump’s Proposed Dreamer Amnesty

Some voices on the right have expressed disappointment that the Trump administration’s proposed immigration deal would offer a path to citizenship not just to the 700,000 or so individuals who already received DACA protections but also to those who would have been eligible for DACA if they had applied, a total group of nearly 2 million.

One objection is that administering such a large amnesty would overload the system. I defer to others on whether that is true, but the answer would not settle the question of whether the broader Dreamer population should be offered citizenship if the offer is bureaucratically practicable. And on that particular question, I think the administration is correct.

The estimable Mark Krikorian finds it “morally dubious” to extend the amnesty beyond DACA recipients: “The reason [DACAns] have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures are in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy.” Certainly one can draw that distinction, but in my mind it does not carry the same weight as it does for Mark. While voluntary submission to the law must be a condition of any amnesty, DACA never was a permanent resolution — only legislation can provide “case closed” certainty. Many conservatives do not even think DACA was constitutional. So I don’t think the real test of whether Dreamers are willing to cooperate with the system has come — both because DACA was not, as I see it, a lawful operation of the system and because I can easily imagine that some Dreamers were reluctant to reveal themselves to the government, fearing that a subsequent administration would change course and come for them.

I also don’t consider the proposed amnesty to be an extraordinary act of mercy. To me it is a simple acknowledgment of the reality that the people in question — whose lives are (speaking in general) deeply rooted here, often with no plausible alternative — are not blameworthy for having entered the country without authorization. That consideration applies equally to DACAns and non-DACAn Dreamers, and seems to me a sufficient reason for offering both groups an unambiguous and constitutionally sound opportunity to right their circumstances.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More