30 United States The EconomistFebruary 3rd 2018
2 companied alien minors”.
He called the trade “a down-the-middle
compromise”. It could certainly drive a
wedge down the middle of the Democratic
Party. The proposal falls far short of a com-
prehensive deal to coverall 11m or so un-
documented migrants in America, but it
would fix something that Democrats have
said is a priority since 2001 (see next story).
On the other hand, the party’s base is keen
on family migration and the congressional
black caucus likes the visa lottery, which
bumps up the number of migrants from Af-
rican countries. Furthermore, any immi-
gration bill that could pass the House
would probably include steep cuts in legal
immigration, which many Democrats
would hate. The White House has said it
supports a House bill which, according to
the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank,
would see a nearly 40% cut in the number
of legal immigrants in 2019, with more cuts
to follow. If passed, this would be the most
restrictive immigration law since the 1920s.
On the Republican side, congressmen
willing to consider offering citizenship to
DREAMers have in the past been tarred as
favouring “amnesty”. In fact, only a couple
of weeks ago Mr Trump’s own campaign
organisation accused Democrats who
wanted to legalise DREAMers of protecting
murderous illegal immigrants. Nativist Re-
publican congressmen might vote for such
a bill out of loyalty to Mr Trump. Then
again, they might prefer not to bend at all.
Perhaps mindful of this, the president
wrapped his immigration offer in language
about crime and revolting murders com-
mitted byMS-13, a Latino gang. That did not
improve his chances of selling the deal to
Democrats. But if it fails, the president has a
ready-made line for the next election. Law-
makers, he said, should “defend Ameri-
cans...and their right to the American
dream. Because Americans are dreamers
too.” This was a mean-spirited little rhetor-
ical dig, reminding people thatDREAMers
are not Americans, and insinuating that
politicians owe them nothing.
Though a bit sunnier in tone than some
of Mr Trump’s other speeches, this one was
similar in content. Mr Trump’s world re-
mains a violent and frightening place,
where Americans need someone like Mr
Trump to keep them safe. He called for
making the country’s nuclear arsenal “so
strong and powerful that it will deter any
acts of aggression”. Just before the speech
he signed an order to keep open America’s
military prison at Guantánamo Bay, which
as a candidate he vowed to fill with “bad
dudes”. He reiterated his “campaign of
maximum pressure” to keep North Korea
from acquiring missiles capable ofhitting
America. Throughout the speech he
praised policemen and the army; teachers,
students and entrepreneurs did not rate a
mention. It was all Hobbes and no Jeffer-
son. Morning in America this was not. 7The original DREAMerA 17-year wait
T
EREZA LEE is the original DREAMer.
Now in her mid-thirties, she is also a
perfect illustration of whypeople
brought to the country illegally when
they were minors ought to become
American citizens. A largely self-taught
pianist (her family could not afford heat-
ing or hot water, let alone a piano teach-
er), her talent was discovered by teachers
at Chicago’s Merit School of Music. At 16
she performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano
Concerto No. 1 with the Chicago Sym-
phony Orchestra. When her teacher
pushed her to apply for college, she had
to come clean about being in the country
illegally. They turned to Illinois’s senior
senator, DickDurbin, for help. After
finding out that Ms Lee would probably
be deported, the senator agreed to write a
bill just for her. It passed Congress with-
out a problem. Other youngsterscame
forward to ask Mr Durbin for help, often
hiding in the car park in front of his office
until he left work. The senator teamed up
with Utah’s Senator Orrin Hatch to write
the DREAM act. That was 17 years ago.
In theory, this should be an easy
problem to solve. Polls show that most
Americans think the DREAMers should
be allowed to stay. “Back in 2001, we had
62 votes for the DREAM act lined up in the
Senate,” remembers Ms Lee, enough
even to override a presidential veto. A
hearing on the bill was scheduled for
September 12th. It was postponed in the
wake of the terrorist attacks that took
place the day before. By the time it
reached the Senate floor again, the moodin the country had changed. “People
were afraid of outsiders,” says Ms Lee.
Detentions and deportations increased.
The DREAMact has been reintroduced
in Congress every couple of years since
then. In 2007 it came close to passing. In
2010 it failed by only five votes. In 2012
Barack Obama issued a possiblyuncon-
stitutional executive edict, the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),
which provided temporary, renewable
work and residency permits to undocu-
mented immigrants younger than 31,
who were brought to America before
they were 16, provided they were in or
had graduated from high school or uni-
versity or had been honourably dis-
charged from the armed forces. In 2013 a
“gang of eight” senators (including Sena-
tor Durbin) proposed a sweeping im-
migration overhaul that would have
expanded the original DREAMact. It
never came to a vote in the House.
Republican primary voters reject
anything that sounds like an amnesty.
Meanwhile, many Democrats do not
particularly want to trade DREAMers for
anything. Mark Krikorian of the Centre
for Immigration Studies, a proponent of
curbs on both legal and illegal immigra-
tion, says that the chances for a deal
remain slight. He believes Democrats
will not vote yes if the price of their
support isthe substantive curb on legal
immigration proposed by the president.
Democrats “are usingDACAas a market-
ing gimmick to get an amnesty for all
illegal immigrants,” saysMr Krikorian.CHICAGO
Congress has let DREAMers down again and againSenator Durbin’s vigil