The Death Of Compromise

Legislation involves compromise and compromise requires trust between the parties and institutional parity and safeguards.  That is not present at the federal level for most issues.

Take immigration.  My compromise is:

1. Deportation for all those who arrived illegally during the Biden Open Borders Party.

2. Deportation for the estimated 1 to 1.5 million illegals with final deportation orders.

3. Deportation for illegals with criminal records (beyond just the initial illegal entry).

- There will be some overlap between these three categories. 

4. An end to sanctuary states and cities which privilege criminal illegals over law abiding citizens (including legal immigrants and those residing here legally).(1) 

5. Anyone who arrived illegally before January 20, 2021 and (1) does not have a criminal record and (2) is not on public support, should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

However, I would oppose any legislation embodying this compromise because of a structural imbalance within the legislation and between the branches of government.  Such legislation if enacted would not operate to effect the compromise.  If Republicans agreed to such a compromise, they would look like fools the next time Democrats control the executive branch, because they would have already allowed the presence of millions of illegals, while the Democrats effectively neutered their side of the bargain.

My assessment is based on what has become clear with Democratic opposition to immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.  Democrats are opposed to removal of any illegals under any conditions and support an open borders policy.  When questioned many Democrats mumble about supporting "common sense" immigration reform but when pressed on details fail to provide any evidence of supporting practical steps to control the borders and deal with illegals currently in the country.  Their vision is of the U.S. as a bus terminal not a real country.

If legislation is enacted containing the elements I outlined above, this is how it would work in the real world.

The legislation would specifically contain Point 5, allowing millions here illegally to stay in the U.S.  If a subsequent administration tried to renege on that deal, their actions would be immediately (and properly) struck down by the courts (regardless of who appointed the judges) because of clear statutory language.

However, implementation of Points 1,2, and 3 reside with the executive branch.  If a Democratic administration decided to use its enforcement discretion to "slow walk" deportations, no court is going to order the executive branch to change its process.  The executive will be able to effectively undermine the compromise.   We have proof on this topic.  In 2024, we were told that an immigration reform bill was needed to control the border.  That was phony, because the Biden administration decided to ignore most of its statutory authority to control the border, while in 2025 the Trump administration showed it could effectively control the border using the same existing laws.  For more on the fake reform bill read No, No, No.

Although the Biden administration killed prospects for immigration reform with its open borders policy, it was President Obama who paved the way in undermining prospects for compromise with his DACA Executive Order.  I wrote about it back in 2014 and also noted the Washington Post's editorial opposition to Obama's action.  In a 2016 post, More Mush From The NY Times, I explained the damage to prospects for compromise on immigration.

The Times article fails to explore the real problem with the President's unilateral actions, and the approval it has generated from Progressive, leading Hillary Clinton to promise she will be even more aggressive in this respect - the undermining of prospects for compromise on any issue, which is ironic given President Obama's consistent invoking of the need for less partisanship.  Or perhaps, more accurately, the President's reference to nonpartisanship is a reflection of Obama's cynicism, as it has become apparent over time he's our most cynical President since Richard Nixon.

Here's an example of how President Obama's approach discourages compromise. I'm in favor of immigration reform that would both provide some increase in legal immigration and improve border security.  But, if he were in Congress today, I would never vote for such a bill or even negotiate with Democrats on it.  The reason is that the essence of compromise, is the each side has to give up something to get something.  In a world where President's push executive orders, informal rulemaking and arbitrary changing of statutory language, there is no assurance that a legislator would get the value of the deal they thought they made.  If a Progressive President has provisions in a compromise immigration reform bill they do not like, they can simply order the agency not to enforce it, or issue an executive order directly overriding the bill, or arbitrarily have the enforcing agency issue an informal notice changing deadlines and announcing a regulatory interpretation that leads to the opposite result intended in the legislation.  When Progressives control the Executive Branch, it means they can implement the sections they like and ignore or override what they don't like, leaving the other side feeling like chumps from Palookaville.  

 Under these conditions, the best course is to not change or reform immigration law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  It is not an exaggeration to state that sanctuary jurisdictions privilege illegals over law abiding citizens.  Every such jurisdiction has established at either the state attorney general or local district attorney level guidelines requiring prosecutors to take into account the risks to immigration status (that is, deportation) in charging decisions and plea deals.  In other words, to favor decisions declining prosecution or making terms easier on plea deals in order to minimize chances of intervention by federal immigration enforcement.  California (no surprise!) has actually enacted a statute requiring prosecutors to consider these factors in making charging and settlement decisions. The result is that an American citizen who has committed a crime will likely be prosecuted more harshly and face more several sentencing than an illegal committing the same crime.

If you want to know how insane sanctuary enforcement is, look no further than the despicable Soros-backed DA of Fairfax County, Virginia - Steven Descano.  Descano's campaign pledge:

Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.  Following such a policy will keep our communities united and strong and demonstrate our Country's commitment to equal justice for all. If two people commit the same crime, but only one's punishment includes deportation, that's a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County. 

It could not be any clearer.  It ignores that the illegal has committed two crimes, one being entry into the U.S., and allows an American citizen to be prosecuted more harshly.  This is not justice, it is privilege for criminals here illegally. 

This wasn't just a campaign pledge by Descano.  He's followed it in practice, releasing several violent illegals, and is now mired in controversy, as those released have committed further violent acts, including murder.  Descano gives no indication of caring about the consequences of his actions for law abiding Americans.  His sole concern is protecting those who have illegally entered this country. 

This also points to another problem in arguments about illegal immigration; discussions about how to measure criminality of illegals and whether it is a problem.  After looking at a number of these analyses it is evident there is a major methodological problem.  Some studies combine legal and illegal immigrants in the analysis.  Most do not distinguish among the origin countries for illegals, despite evidence that crime rates significantly differ depending on country of origin.  There is also the data source problem because a careful review reveals that in many instances the data used in the analysis is not uniform, or missing key jurisdictions.  Finally, the sanctuary jurisdictions preference for no charging, or reducing charges, and allowing pleas to lesser offenses, brings into question any analysis on this subject.  The truth is we simply don't know about comparative crime rates between illegals and citizens and others lawfully residing here.

But that isn't the biggest problem.  Looking at comparative rates is the wrong metric in this situation.  There certainly are instances where comparative rates are the right metric, but in the case of illegal immigration every crime is one that would not have occurred but for the illegal entry.  It is the additive absolute number, not comparative rate, that is relevant.  For instance, there are about 20,000 homicides in the U.S. annually.  There are a few jurisdictions that report crimes committed by illegals by category.  A reasonable extrapolation of that data leads to the conclusion that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 homicides in the U.S. are committed annually by illegals.  The illegal homicide rate is simply irrelevant, if you have any interest at all in preventing homicides by illegals.