What is it about “compromise” that President Obama doesn’t understand? Is it that he and Democrats would have to give up something—perhaps numerous things—to reach an agreement with Republicans? Or is a bipartisan deal unappealing simply because Obama and Democrats would have to share the credit with Republicans?
The issue this time is immigration. And Obama has resumed his familiar role not as compromise-maker but as compromise-wrecker. He spurned bipartisanship on the stimulus and Obamacare and twice raised his demands so high that a grand bargain with Republicans on taxes and spending was impossible, first in 2011, then in 2012.
Now Obama is confronted by a compromise on overhauling the immigration system that’s already been reached by eight senators, four Democrats and four Republicans. In a speech last week, Obama said the agreement is “very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on.” Yet he’s dissatisfied.
The president wants more. He would tilt the deal in a Democratic direction by putting the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country instantly on a path to American citizenship. Border security? That comes later (if at all). If Obama prevails, the compromise will be shattered and odds on passage of immigration reform reduced to near zero.
That outcome, by the way, would please the zealous bloc of conservatives whose battle cry is “Keep Illegal Immigrants Illegal”—in other words, maintain the unstable status quo, or worse. And it would squander a rare opportunity to break the impasse on immigration with a deal that treats illegals fairly and decently and, better still, is good for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment