DACA advocates get the vote they want, so get ready for more sob stories about illegals

Through a series of complicated legislative maneuvers, it appears that a pro-DACA legalization move from congressional "moderates" has been sidelined in favor of a compromise in Congress for a series of votes on legalizing 11 million Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, coupling them with some border security measures to rope in conservative votes.  Here are two stories about it, explaining the tangled dance of legislation.

It looks like the deal President Trump was bucking for earlier – swapping DACA legalization for a wall – so it shouldn't be that much of a shock.  But illegals and their advocates are calling it a victory (and moderates, who lost their campaign to override congressional committees by just two votes short of the necessary 218, are keeping that maneuver open to maybe get more votes from their sour-grapes fellows), so you can just bet which side of the equation is going to get the most press.

Prepare to be flooded with illegal alien sob stories, calling us the bad guy for not letting these people in on the spot, instead of asking them to go back to their home countries and apply for the immigration status they want, the same way all legal immigrants do.

We'll hear from the valedictorians; the M.D.s; the beaten wives (or, more likely, girlfriends); the migrants with expensively handicapped children; the military-aged young men who speak no English and who claim we owe them citizenship in order to keep them out of gangs; the people who paid MS-13 to smuggle them in and then claim they're running from MS-13, before moving into MS-13 neighborhoods; the military veterans; and all the other sob stories this bunch and their slick, Mexican government-linked allies have subject us to in their bid to ensure that these people get something for free (and Democrats get new voters) instead of their simply having to obey immigration law.

This will be accompanied by Soros-backed human rights complaints about U.S. detention facilities, rhetoric about self-separated families, think-tank talk about how illegals "help" the economy, and sanctimonious calls for lawlessness over rule of law from the pulpit.

Lucky us.

What won't be part of the debate is the things that disgust us about this undifferentiated group of good and bad migrants – the violent activity of migrants at sports events cheering their home countries' teams, the Mexican flag-waving at U.S.-paid for university institutions, the middle fingers waved at us as borders are breached, the anti-American statements from actual communist veterans of Central America's wars, the high incarceration rates of illegals (it's about a fourth of the prison population, well out of proportion to numbers), the loud screaming protests from illegals blocking our elected legislators and saying we "owe" them (this isn't a call for mercy, and rest assured: none of these illegals will kiss the ground in gratitude the way legal immigrants do if they get it), the Chavista-style demands for free stuff, the lack of English skills or any salable skills of large numbers of these immigrants, their inability to assimilate, the stolen Social Security numbers, the money paid to cartel smugglers whose organizations grow big and strong based on the $6,000 crossing fees illegals feed them with, or the massive cost of handing the Third World's finest all the social services of a developed country in exchange for nothing.  Nor will there be any talk about sorting the DACA recipients out, and choosing to allow only the best ones (with English skills, some kind of record of academic accomplishment, and zero – repeat: zero – criminal record beyond being in the country illegally, resembling that of most Americans), as well as necessary farm workers.

That stuff won't be discussed.

Meanwhile, even if the coming votes are coupled with border security measures, there's considerable electoral risk for Republicans.  One, the Democrats are going to call it a victory if illegals get a free ride no matter what.  Two, the border security measures that may accompany such a vote could easily be useless and defanged, the way all the other tough border security measures have been.  Worst of all, some federal judge may negate the enforcement measures of the law and leave only the amnesty.

The better course would be no vote at all.  Now a reasonable solution is, at best, a narrow path.

Through a series of complicated legislative maneuvers, it appears that a pro-DACA legalization move from congressional "moderates" has been sidelined in favor of a compromise in Congress for a series of votes on legalizing 11 million Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, coupling them with some border security measures to rope in conservative votes.  Here are two stories about it, explaining the tangled dance of legislation.

It looks like the deal President Trump was bucking for earlier – swapping DACA legalization for a wall – so it shouldn't be that much of a shock.  But illegals and their advocates are calling it a victory (and moderates, who lost their campaign to override congressional committees by just two votes short of the necessary 218, are keeping that maneuver open to maybe get more votes from their sour-grapes fellows), so you can just bet which side of the equation is going to get the most press.

Prepare to be flooded with illegal alien sob stories, calling us the bad guy for not letting these people in on the spot, instead of asking them to go back to their home countries and apply for the immigration status they want, the same way all legal immigrants do.

We'll hear from the valedictorians; the M.D.s; the beaten wives (or, more likely, girlfriends); the migrants with expensively handicapped children; the military-aged young men who speak no English and who claim we owe them citizenship in order to keep them out of gangs; the people who paid MS-13 to smuggle them in and then claim they're running from MS-13, before moving into MS-13 neighborhoods; the military veterans; and all the other sob stories this bunch and their slick, Mexican government-linked allies have subject us to in their bid to ensure that these people get something for free (and Democrats get new voters) instead of their simply having to obey immigration law.

This will be accompanied by Soros-backed human rights complaints about U.S. detention facilities, rhetoric about self-separated families, think-tank talk about how illegals "help" the economy, and sanctimonious calls for lawlessness over rule of law from the pulpit.

Lucky us.

What won't be part of the debate is the things that disgust us about this undifferentiated group of good and bad migrants – the violent activity of migrants at sports events cheering their home countries' teams, the Mexican flag-waving at U.S.-paid for university institutions, the middle fingers waved at us as borders are breached, the anti-American statements from actual communist veterans of Central America's wars, the high incarceration rates of illegals (it's about a fourth of the prison population, well out of proportion to numbers), the loud screaming protests from illegals blocking our elected legislators and saying we "owe" them (this isn't a call for mercy, and rest assured: none of these illegals will kiss the ground in gratitude the way legal immigrants do if they get it), the Chavista-style demands for free stuff, the lack of English skills or any salable skills of large numbers of these immigrants, their inability to assimilate, the stolen Social Security numbers, the money paid to cartel smugglers whose organizations grow big and strong based on the $6,000 crossing fees illegals feed them with, or the massive cost of handing the Third World's finest all the social services of a developed country in exchange for nothing.  Nor will there be any talk about sorting the DACA recipients out, and choosing to allow only the best ones (with English skills, some kind of record of academic accomplishment, and zero – repeat: zero – criminal record beyond being in the country illegally, resembling that of most Americans), as well as necessary farm workers.

That stuff won't be discussed.

Meanwhile, even if the coming votes are coupled with border security measures, there's considerable electoral risk for Republicans.  One, the Democrats are going to call it a victory if illegals get a free ride no matter what.  Two, the border security measures that may accompany such a vote could easily be useless and defanged, the way all the other tough border security measures have been.  Worst of all, some federal judge may negate the enforcement measures of the law and leave only the amnesty.

The better course would be no vote at all.  Now a reasonable solution is, at best, a narrow path.