Should the US Deport a 4-Year-Old?

When it comes to immigration, many Americans say that immigrants should just follow the legal process and come in the front door. Several recent cases of productive-yet-illegal immigrants, many with American family members, being deported have been met with the response that they should have become legalized while they were here to avoid deportation. Increasingly, however, there are cases in which people try to follow the legal process, but are stymied by the system. The case of four-year-old Angela Becerra is one such case that illustrates just how broken the American immigration system is.

Angela is the adopted daughter of two American citizen parents. Colorado’s Fox 31 reports that Marco and Amy Becerra adopted Angela when they were residents of Peru in 2014. Marco has dual American and Peruvian citizenship while four-year-old Angela is a citizen of Peru.

Angela was born on May 23, 2014 and was abandoned at birth. “She was 11 days old when she was brought to the orphanage,” her adoptive mother said. Angela’s biological mother “was treated like a dog. She was chained to the table and sex-trafficked. That’s the reality. No running water. No electricity. Very little food.”

Amy said that the Becerras were asked by a woman at the orphanage to foster baby Angela. “She literally placed this little 5-pound baby in our hands and said do you think you guys can take care of her?”

The Becerras agreed and ultimately adopted Angela legally. In 2017, the couple decided to return to the US, in part so that Angela could grow up as an American and benefit from education in American schools. The family now lives in Aurora, Colorado where Amy accepted a job with the State of Colorado and Marco works for the federal government.

Amy started her job in 2017 with the understanding that Marco and Angela would soon join her in Colorado, but Angela’s immigration application kept hitting roadblocks. The US does not normally grant tourist visas for anyone with a current immigration application so it was 13 months before the little girl was allowed to join her mother in Colorado for the first time in March 2018 when she was finally allowed to enter the US on a tourist visa that expires on August 31. No deportation proceedings are currently underway, but after Angela’s visa expires she will be at risk for deportation.

The Becerras continued to follow the legal process, but now, less than a month before Angela’s tourist visa expires, the little girl’s immigration application has been denied. The problem seems to be that Angela’s adoption was formalized in Peru, not the United States.

“I don’t know what it takes to reopen a case. Once it’s closed, it’s closed,” Amy said.

The law does provide for an appeal, but it is unlikely that the process can be completed before the end of August. At the end of the month, when Angela’s tourist visa expires, she will be subject to deportation even though she has no family or home to return to in Peru.

“We’re both citizens. My husband and I have a full legal binding adoption completed and we have a birth certificate that lists no other parent,” Amy Becerra said. “It’s inconceivable that a child of two citizen parents would have to live out their life as an undocumented alien in this country.”

“I’ve followed the path they’ve given me, and it’s such a dysfunctional, uncoordinated system,” Amy said.

The Becerras have contacted immigration attorneys, but at this point are uncertain why Angela’s application was denied. A letter explaining the decision should be received from the government in the next few weeks, but by then Angela may be an illegal immigrant despite the family’s best efforts to follow the law.

The family has also contacted their congressman, Republican Mike Coffman, for help. Coffman’s office is working with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Denver to cut through red tape and try to find a speedy resolution to Angela’s case.

“I mean this is beyond belief,” Rep. Coffman told Fox 31. “I believe we have a broken immigration system, and this is a symptom of that broken immigration system.”

The case is an illustration how even immigrants who attempt to follow the law can find it difficult or impossible to become legal citizens. The Byzantine immigration bureaucracy is fraught with pitfalls and delays that can cause even the most well-intentioned immigrants to be denied legal status and end up being deported.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How To Solve The Immigration Problem

With the revelations about the Trump Administration policy of separating children of illegal immigrants from their parents, federal immigration policy is back in the headlines. After the failure of the DACA deal earlier this year, the controversy gives Congress another chance to finally fix our broken immigration system.

The first step in the immigration fix is to realize that it requires a bipartisan compromise. Some of my conservative friends have fought immigration reform for years on the grounds that border security should come first. This stance has resulted in the status quo on the border being preserved for a decade. Republicans need to realize that unless they get enough Senate votes to end a filibuster, a standalone border security bill is never going to pass.

There is no indication that the GOP is going to get a supermajority any time soon. With prospects in the midterm elections looking gloomy, it will be a struggle for Republicans to maintain control of the House, let alone seize a filibuster-proof lock on the Senate.

If the border is going to be secured, it must be as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, President Trump has poisoned the well with his demands for a “big beautiful wall” and Democrats have become so crazed in their anti-Trump stance that they were unable to accept a generous compromise on DACA in February.

In the wake of that failure and with job creation booming, immigration policy should be ripe for reform. Public opinion has favored reform for years. Democrats apparently believed that any failure to pass a bill would be blamed on Republicans, but their resistance backfired as DACA protesters rallied against the DNC. Further foot-dragging could erode their base.

For their part, Republicans usually favor changing laws that don’t work, but immigration law has become a sacred cow. Taking a closer look at current law shows that it is unworkable. The border is not sealed and penalties for illegal immigration amount to a slap on the wrist. To make matters worse, legal immigration is so restrictive and difficult that it encourages people to break the law and cross illegally or overstay visas.

The status quo also risks alienating the traditional Republican support from businesses. Under President Trump, temporary work visas have been reduced. I described last month how the shortage of visas is wreaking havoc in the Maryland crab processing industry and with other employers around the country who depend on immigrant workers. Recent reports that the US now has more job openings than workers to fill them underscore the need for more legal immigration. Conservatives should realize the effect of the Law of Unintended Consequences on shutting off the flow of immigrant labor.

Some conservatives argue that employers should simply pay higher wages to attract American workers. This is akin to the liberal argument that employers should simply pay more to provide health insurance benefits for their workers. Both arguments ignore the economic reality that businesses must be profitable to exist. If companies pay higher labor costs, they must raise prices. If prices are too high, consumers stop buying their product. Companies can either go out of business because they have no workers or because they have no customers.

The basic idea of an immigration compromise is a simple one. First, tie other reforms to border security with established triggers. Other permanent reforms do not go into effect unless the border is secure.

Other aspects of the compromise would include a pathway to legalization (not necessarily citizenship) for current illegals. It is unrealistic to expect the deportation of the millions of illegals currently in the US, especially considering that doing so would leave many of their children, American citizens, without parents to provide for them and entitle them to benefits from an already-strained welfare system. Mass deportations would require an expensive expansion of the police state that should alarm conservatives and libertarians. Let’s acknowledge that many illegals are integrated into society and are contributing to the economy.

That doesn’t mean that there should be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. As immigration hawks point out, they did break the law and should be punished. Punishment does not have to involve deportation however. Punishment could also be in the form of delayed or denied citizenship, paying fines and back taxes, community service, probation and background checks.

To help businesses and farmers, a guest worker program should be implemented. Many American jobs, like those of Maryland’s crab fishermen, depend on a symbiotic relationship with immigrant labor. It is estimated that each visa job creates 2.5 jobs for American citizens. American crops should not be rotting in the fields because there is no one to pick them.

Priorities for immigrants should be changed to accept more immigrants who can contribute to the American economy. Our current system allows foreign students to be trained at American universities, but then denies them the ability to work for American companies. Instead, American-educated engineers and scientists are sent abroad to work for companies that compete against us. Immigrants with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should be at the top of the list to immigrate.

In return, illegal immigration should be made a felony with a punishment severe enough to deter illegally being in the US. A better system of tracking visitors who come to the US on visas is needed to prevent overstays. The carrot-and-stick approach would make immigration easier for legitimate workers while punishing illegal immigrants more severely.

Aside from the boost to the economy, another big advantage to solving the problem of illegal migrant workers would be in a more efficient border security system. If there is a viable path for workers to enter the country, law enforcement can focus on the smugglers, violent criminals and terrorists who would still be using the back door. There would be fewer sheep to hide the wolves.

There is broad agreement from both sides on most of these details. The difficulty in reforming our broken immigration system is in having the will to buck the extremists on both sides who prefer to keep the current broken system rather than compromise to solve the problem.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Gorsuch Sides With Court Liberals - And It's a Good Thing

“But the Supreme Court” was the rallying cry for Trump supporters in the 2016 election. This was replaced by, “But Gorsuch” after President Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat of Antonin Scalia last year. Imagine the consternation then when Justice Gorsuch joined with the liberal wing of the Court to rule against the Trump Administration this week in a prominent immigration law case.

In truth, Gorsuch's ruling is exactly what should have been expected from a strict constructionist jurist. This is what most Republicans have claimed to want on the bench, but, unlike judicial activists, a constructionist judge can be expected to rule against partisan interests when the facts of the case require it.

This was the case in Sessions v. Dimaya. A legal immigrant from the Philippines, James Dimaya, was convicted of two burglaries. The Trump Administration ordered Dimaya's deportation under a federal law that requires mandatory removal of any immigrant convicted an “aggravated felony.” The law refers to the definition of “aggravated felony” in the US Code, which is a “crime of violence” to encompass “any … offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” The Trump Administration's position was that Dimaya's two nonviolent burglaries were aggravated felonies under the law. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the definition of “aggravated felony” was unconstitutionally vague.

The ruling, even though it did not include most of the Court's conservatives, was directly in line with how Justice Scalia would have likely ruled. In fact, the ruling in Sessions v. Dimaya follows a precedent in which Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a unanimous ruling. In Johnson v. United States (2015), the Court ruled that a similar definition of “violent felonies” was also too vague.

In both cases, the justices resisted the temptation to fill in the blanks and decide what Congress meant when it established the statute. Even though many conservatives would have been pleased if the two cases had been decided differently, if the Court had presumed to know the intent of the legislators who wrote the law they would have been guilty of legislating from the bench, something conservatives purport to abhor.

Scalia was a strong opponent of trying to divine what legislators meant when they crafted laws. In a different dissent, Scalia famously railed against the practice, which often leads justices to rule based on their own opinions rather than the letter of the law, saying, “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia explained in a different speech. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

If the Trump Administration wants to deport burglars, it should persuade Congress to pass a law that explicitly says immigrant burglars should be deported rather than trying to redefine burglary as a violent crime.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Sessions v. Dimaya may have been a loss for the Trump Administration, but it was a sorely needed victory for the rule of law. It should inspire Congress to be more specific in new laws and leave less room for interpretation by prosecutors, judges, bureaucrats and presidents.

It looks more and more like Neil Gorsuch will be the kind of justice that America needs.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Deportation of Buba Jabbi Is An Injustice

In a story that is becoming increasingly commonplace, ICE agents deported the father of two young American citizens to the West African nation of Gambia last week. Buba Jabbi, 41, was married to Katrina Jabbi, also an American citizen, who is pregnant with the couple's third child.

It's tempting to for many to say, “Good riddance” to Mr. Jabbi, who entered the country legally in 1995, but overstayed his tourist visa. However, a closer look reveals the broken nature of current US immigration law.

Mr. Jabbi came to the US in 1995 to attend the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and never left. Per USA Today, Jabbi eventually wound up in Wisconsin working as a truck driver. He met Katrina in 2009 and they married in 2013. They currently have two daughters, Nalia, 5, and Aisha, 1.

Jabbi tried for years to become a legal resident of the US. After filing the paperwork incorrectly, he was subjected to removal proceedings, receiving a final order of removal in 2010. His deportation was delayed for years because Gambia refused to provide travel documents for his return. While he waited, he was given orders of supervision and a work authorization. He was required to report to ICE annually. It was on one of these visits that Jabbi was detained last month and subsequently deported.

"We were confident that [Buba] doesn't have a criminal record and that he's working, there is no trouble with our family." Katrina told WAOW News in Wisconsin. "We were confident we would be able to sort this out in the next few years."

Jabbi was not accused of a crime. “Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense,” wrote Elizabeth Kozycki, an immigration attorney, on Avvo.com. The offense is a civil violation and a not a criminal one under current US law.

Nevertheless, Nolo.com points out that current US law does not provide exceptions for illegal immigrants who are married to American citizens. Illegals who have been in the US for more than a year or who have returned illegally after being deported must wait 10 years after they last left the US to apply for re-entry.

Does the penalty of deportation and exile for at least a decade fit the civil offense of overstaying a visa? It does not seem so.

Mr. Jabbi was not a criminal and had no violent history. He was gainfully employed and providing for his wife and daughters who are all US citizens. Mrs. Jabbi is employed part-time. The odds are that she will now need government assistance to provide for her children in the absence of their father.

In deporting Mr. Jabbi, the federal government not only incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs, it deprived the economy of a willing worker who was contributing to the good of the nation as well as his family. Mr. Jabbi's absence will likely add four people who had been part of a self-sustaining family to the entitlement rolls.

The lack of a father figure also leads to bad outcomes for children. Children of absent fathers often make poor life choices that lead to substance abuse and becoming single parents themselves. This perpetuates the cycle of entitlements and adds to growing national debt.

Those who say that immigrants should just “follow the law” and “get in line” fail to understand that the current law is unworkable. Even before the Trump Administration reduced the number of legal visas, wait times for legal immigrants could take decades. The State Department visa bulletin notes that an unmarried Mexican child of a US permanent resident would have to wait 21 years merely to file an application for an immigrant visa. For people who came to the US illegally, there is no clear path to legalization unless they fall within the exceptions granted by the DACA program. The future of DACA is currently in doubt as well.

While the federal government has the right and duty to control its borders and set immigration standards, it is not justice to require illegal immigrants, especially those who have American families, to do the impossible. The United States clearly has a national interest in deporting violent criminals such as members of MS-13, but what is the interest in deporting law-abiding, peaceful family men like Mr. Jabbi?

Jabbi's case is similar to that of Jorge Garcia, the married father of two from Detroit who was deported to Mexico, a country he had not seen in 30 years, in January. Garcia was brought to the US as a 10-year-old, but was too old to qualify for DACA. Garcia, who was employed as a landscaper, had no criminal record. Garcia had been working toward legal status since 2005 and had spent about $125,000 in the process.

Allowing immigrants like Mr. Jabbi to stay with their families would not require an amnesty or pardon for their immigration sins. It would require immigration reform. Reform bills proposed in the past would require illegals to undergo background checks and pay fines and back taxes as restitution for illegally entering the US.

Deportation is not the only way of making right the wrong of illegal immigration. In the case of people like Buba Jabbi, deportation is not the best course for the immigrant, their family or the United States. If conservatives can forgive President Trump for his numerous indiscretions, it seems appropriate to offer some small measure of grace to immigrants who only want to peacefully support their families in the land of opportunity. Hardworking, family-oriented people are the sort of citizens – or residents – that America should welcome.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Our broken immigration system requires complete reform

As President Trump rolls out his new immigration initiatives, it will likely be a mixed bag. Some of Trump’s proposals, like border security and ending the Syrian refugee program, make a modicum of sense. Others, when viewed in the context of the current immigration mess, sound good but aren’t practical in the real world. It’s easy to say “enforce the law” on the campaign trail, but more difficult to put that philosophy into practice when the law doesn’t take economics and public opinion into account.

The law should be enforced. The problem is current immigration system is a mess because the law hasn’t been enforced for decades. Now the law doesn’t reflect the current reality on the ground. Additionally, immigration law probably doesn’t actually say what many people think it does.

For instance, illegally crossing the border into the United States is not a felony. It isn’t even a misdemeanor. It’s a civil infraction akin to a traffic fine. The US Code sets the penalty for “improper entry by an alien” at “$50 and not more than $250 for each such entry” with no mention of jail time or deportation. Marriage fraud by an alien is punished more severely (imprisonment up to five years, a fine up to $250,000 or both) than illegally crossing the border.

Today the immigration problem is really two problems. One is the national security aspect of having thousands of unknown, unvetted people cross the border or overstay visas. The other is related to jobs and the economy.

National security is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. In 2001, I would have thought it inconceivable that 15 years later the border would still be relatively porous. My chief concern with the border issue is keeping terrorists out. A secondary concern is the humanitarian need to prevent immigrants from secretly crossing into the arid regions of the Southwest where many ultimately die in the desert.

Mr. Trump’s signature promise of The Wall purports to address border security, but it really isn’t that simple. Congress passed a bill authorizing a border fence in 2006, but the project ran into many problems. A large issue is that the Rio Grande defines the border between the US and Mexico, but ranchers need access to the river’s water for their cattle. Further, The Wall would do nothing to stop the problem of people who come into the country legally and overstay visas. This represents about 40 percent of illegal immigrants.

The second issue, that of jobs, is related to the first. Currently, many industries use migrant workers who come across the border illegally. If the border is secured, companies and farms will still need access to these workers. Without the pool of migrant labor, prices for many items will increase, hurting American consumers.

It may sound trite to say that there are some jobs that Americans won’t do, but it is true. Harvesting crops is backbreaking work. Past shortages of migrants have illustrated that there are some jobs that native-born Americans won’t do at any price.

When my native Georgia passed a strict immigration law in 2011, the result was a shortage of labor on farms and in hotels. As the Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in, crops rotted in the fields because there weren’t enough workers to harvest them. Agricultural losses were estimated at $140 million for the year. Other states have had similar problems. In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that California farms couldn’t find enough harvesters even though they offered $17 per hour.

This creates a political problem for immigration hardliners. If the Republicans pass a law that cuts off the source of labor for farms and businesses, then those businesses will quickly flock to the Democratic Party, which advocates for a full amnesty of illegals and, in some cases, open borders. Businesses are a chief ally of the Republican Party, but if the GOP adopts anti-business policies that will change.

A Pew survey of illegal immigrants estimated that five percent of the US workforce was made up of illegals. The economic effect of deporting all of these workers could be catastrophic for the economy. There would be an immediate shortage of labor causing a dramatic increase in both wages and prices of goods, possibly triggering inflation or a recession. This doesn’t include the cost of mass deportation itself, which the Wall Street Journal estimated at $400 billion in new federal spending and which would reduce the US GDP by about $1 trillion. The cash-strapped federal government would be spending billions to destroy the economy.

The final problem with the current immigration system is that it is fundamentally unjust and inequitable. The barriers to immigrating legally are so high that they actually encourage people to immigrate illegally. If an immigrant chooses to follow the current law, they might wait as long as 24 years – about a third of the average lifespan - due to backlogs of applicants. Bureaucratic problems mean that not all legal visas available are actually issued. Illegal immigration would be less of a problem if the legal process was easier and less time consuming.

The DREAMers, children who came to the US illegally as minors, present a particular legal and moral problem. These children had no intent to break the law, they simply stayed with their parents. Now, years or decades later, they have no real connection to their birth countries and no practical way to stay in their adopted country. Many don’t even speak the language of their native country. President Obama’s deferred deportation program for DREAMers overstepped his constitutional authority, but it was overwhelmingly supported by voters as a fair solution.

The fact is that most voters don’t want to deport all illegals. Numerous polls over the years show strong support for the idea of a pathway to citizenship. Even exit polls among 2016 Republican voters show that most supported a pathway to citizenship and very few were in favor of Trump-style mass deportations.

The pathway idea is not amnesty, but a plan for illegals to pay back taxes, pay fines, endure waiting periods and undergo background checks before being given legal status. They will pay their debt to society, but their current status as workers in the American economy would be acknowledged. Why should wanting to make a better life in America be the only crime that is unforgivable? If I was a Mexican peasant, I would probably try to come here - legally or illegally – as well.

In my view, the conservative position on immigrants is that people who want to come here to work should be allowed to do so if they are needed. My tendency toward small government leads me to reject the creation of an expensive new federal police bureaucracy to track down and deport illegals who are quietly going about their lives and jobs.

The border needs to be secured, but immigration reform is needed to adapt to the workforce changes that will result. As the border is secured, the law should be changed to allow people to legally immigrate more easily. A guest worker program should be created for migrant workers. Logic dictates that fewer people will sneak across the border if they can come here legally. Everify should be fully implemented to allow businesses to check immigration status of workers.

In return for the easing of immigration policies, enforcement should be stepped up. It should be a felony to cross the border illegally, punishable by jail time and deportation. “Catch and release” of illegals should end. Businesses should be punished for hiring illegal workers. Those who come here on legal visas should be tracked and deported if they overstay.

This sort of comprehensive solution makes economic as well as political sense. Democrats still have enough votes to filibuster a hardline immigration bill. A pathway to citizenship paired with strong enforcement could earn bipartisan support. Trump, as the immigration hardliner, could have a Nixon-goes-to-China triumph.

Donald Trump wasn’t elected because of his hardline immigration ideas. He was elected in spite of them. Americans don’t want mass roundups and deportations of illegals any more than they wanted Obamacare. If President Trump and the Republicans try to use their majority to force an unpopular policy on American voters, they may repeat the Democrat experience of the past few years and quickly find themselves to be a minority once again.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump will 'work something out' with DREAMers

Ms Phoenix/Flickr

In the interview with Time Magazine that accompanies his selection as the Person of the Year, Donald Trump raised eyebrows with a comment that he will “work something out” for illegal aliens who came to the US as minors. Trump had previously said that the illegal immigrants, known as “DREAMers” for the DREAM Act that would have given them a path to legal status, would have to be deported.

Trump told Time in the Nov. 23 interview, “I want Dreamers for our children also. We’re going to work something out. On a humanitarian basis it’s a very tough situation. We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud. But that’s a very tough situation.”

The DREAM Act was a bipartisan bill first introduced in 2001, but never passed into law. The law would allow illegal immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 to apply for conditional resident status if they have five years of residency, earn a high school diploma or GED, show good moral character and pass background checks. Permanent residency could be granted if they serve in the US military or attend a higher education institution for two years. The DREAM acronym stands for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.”

Although the DREAM Act never became law, President Obama used Executive Orders to defer deportation for young illegals who have clean records. Obama’s Executive Order was the basis for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that gives some DREAMers exemption from deportation and two-year work permits. Trump said in the campaign that he would terminate the program.

The Texas Tribune profiled several DREAMers in a post-election article. Many came as young teenagers to be with parents who were already in the US. Jessica Azua was 14 when she came to the US illegally. Now, at 25, she is graduate of Texas A&M. Edgar Navarrete, now 22 and a student at the University of Texas at Austin, came to the US with his parents as a toddler and has no memory of his hometown in Mexico. Illegal immigrants who came to the US at a young age under the direction of their parents have no lives in their native countries to return to.

Trump has reversed position on immigration before. Before running as a hardliner on immigration, Trump told DREAM activists in 2013, “You’ve convinced me” according to NBC Latino. In August, Trump considered a new immigration position in the midst of the campaign before reversing his reversal. Even as he seems to consider a compromise on the DREAMers, Trump has appointed immigration hardliners to his cabinet.

Trump has said since the election that he still intends to build his wall, but other aspects of his immigration policy may be subject to change. During the campaign, he insisted on deportation of all illegal aliens, but has since said on “60 Minutes” that deporting violent criminals will be a priority, then “after the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we're going to make a determination on the people that you're talking about who are terrific people.”

In the Time interview, Trump continues to call for a wall. “We’re going to build the wall. I’m going to build the wall. We’re going to have strong borders. But we’re also going to have people coming across the borders because we need workers.”

He also hints at other aspects of an immigration reform plan, which may see a change from the current family-based system to one that seeks to match immigrants to the needs of the US workforce. “We have to be able to have people come in to our country, because that’s good for all of us. It’s good for them, but it’s good for all of us. But we’re going to have very strong borders. We’re not going to have illegals coming in. But we’re going to have people coming in, but we’re also going to have them coming in based to a certain extent on merit.”

Deviation from his hardline deportation policy could cause a rift in Trump’s base, but might help more moderates to get behind Trump. Polling over the past few years has consistently shown that most Americans support a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Even exit polls of Republican primary voters, including many Trump voters, showed that the party was roughly split down the middle on the issue of legalization and that most opposed deportation of all illegals.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump flips on immigration

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Rumors are swirling that Donald Trump is prepared to reverse his stance on illegal immigration, the cornerstone of his campaign. The Trump campaign began last summer with rhetoric that focused heavily on Mexico and illegal immigration. Trump made his promise of a wall on the Mexican border the centerpiece of his campaign.

The rumors that Trump is flip-flopping on immigration began Saturday night with a Buzzfeed article. Buzzfeed cited three sources who confirmed that Trump signaled his willingness to soften his immigration stance in a secret meeting in the Trump Tower with the newly formed National Hispanic Advisory Council For Trump. The article stated that Trump did not use the term “legalization,” but had indicated that he was open to a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants “that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner.”

Univision also cited three sources, some of which were also named by Buzzfeed. One source cited by both outlets was Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer. Monty said, “I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane.” Monty claimed that the new Trump plan “wouldn't be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation.”

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus confirmed to Univision that the meeting took place and that it was part of “our expansive effort to engage the Hispanic community.”

The reports sparked a quick denial from Mr. Trump. I'm not flip flopping," he told Fox News on the issue Monday. "We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm.”

Trump and new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway were noncommittal on the specifics of the current version of the Trump immigration plan. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway replied “to be determined” when asked if Trump still advocated for “a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants” in the US. Throughout the campaign Trump has been an immigration hardliner who called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Univision also cited Helen Aguirre, an RNC spokeswoman who was present at the meeting. Aguirre confirmed that the Trump campaign was working on a new plan. “Trump was very categorical in saying that he's seeking a fair immigration reform," she said. "He wants to listen to everyone and announce his conclusions in the coming days."

By Sunday, Aguirre was reversing herself in a Breitbart piece. “Some folks talked about legalization, not citizenship, for the undocumented,” she said. “Mr. Trump did not say he was in favor of legalization. Some folks may have felt that he was open to it–and he gave zero indication of that.”

Aguirre told the Washington Post, “He listened to the comments and suggestions made by the various board members, but he never indicated what his immigration policy would be.”

Nevertheless, the comments by Aguirre and Conway confirmed that Trump’s immigration policy is changing. Conway said that “as the weeks unfold” Trump will reveal his new immigration plan. He is expected to address the topic this Thursday in Colorado.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line