One issue here is that what we're talking about when we talk about "border security" changed. The 2013 framework was about D's trading legalization for more patrol, fence, work checks. But today's debate is largely about asylum seekers, which was not a major concern at the time.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1374003284214681606
Before the first child migrant crisis, D's had a simple formula: Give R's any amount of money for border security, no matter how absurd, in exchange for path to citizenship. But walls and patrols don't address the current q, what do you do with people legally requesting to stay.
You do not have a right to cross the border illegally just to work, but you do have a legal right to go to the border and try to claim asylum. The answer to how to deal with that issue at every step of the way is far more complex and divisive.
The big reason D's were able to offer Trump wall for DREAMers (and probably still would) is the wall was effectively just money and symbolism. Most of it would probably never even get built. But what to do with children and families has no easy solution either party can agree on.
This is also why immigration restrictionists had to constantly stop Trump from cutting a deal with D's. The wall means next to nothing to their goals, it's changes to legal procedure for border crossers and cutting legal immigration that matters to them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
