Donald Trump's Immigration Compromise?

Trump may have stumbled into an immigration reform that could reach agreement with all spectrums of the Party. A few years back, Trump viewed Romney's self deportation plan as cruel and bad politics. He added that he would be willing to allow those illegals to stay in the country if they met certain criteria. Lost in much of the discussing of Trump's policies is that he essentially stated the same principles that he stated in 2012, that many of the illegals here will stay, or to paraphrase Trump, “After I deport them across the border back to Mexico, I will bring the good ones back.” Does anyone believe for one second that Trump is actually going to deport 11 million illegals just to bring back 10 million? Nor does his written plan even bring up deporting every illegal but emphasizes those illegals who are “criminals.” (Note to reader, coming into this country is illegal but many illegals have long ties to their communities and nearly half of Hispanics know someone here illegally. But there is a difference between an illegal who is a career criminal and an illegal who has worked various jobs, sent money home, and stayed out of trouble.)

On this point, there is general agreement that border security is a first step necessity before any movement, and that's the consensus almost all the candidates regardless on their thoughts of dealing with those here illegally. And if Trump stays true to what he has said publicly on those here illegally, in that he will “bring them back after deporting them,” he is in agreement with many on the right just like historian Victor Davis Hanson, who is an immigration hawk but who has called to allow those who have become part of their community to stay if they pay a fine. Jeb Bush has stated similar sentiments on forcing illegals to pay, and Trump has stated that he would tax remittance payments but all parties are in agreement that illegals will have to pay something whether it is fine or a tax on remittance payments (the later, it should be pointed out would affect legal immigrants as well).

In addition, the Republicans are opposed to sanctuary cities and many Republicans don’t approve of a pathway to citizenship for those illegals allowed to stay, but there are areas of disagreement including how to deal with anchor babies and what a new immigration policy would look like.

So on key issues: borders security, the fate of illegals here and whether they should pay a fine or tax the remittances, there is agreement that that illegals will pay something. The question remains on the issue dealing with anchor babies since this is presently a constitutional issue and can’t be solved through legislation.

As for who should legally be allowed in, that is a question left undecided as some like NR Ramesh Ponnuru stated that he would either support keeping immigration at the present level or even lower levels. So do we base immigration on skills needed, or family relations, or a combination of the both? Would those here illegally but who are allowed to stay, have a path to citizenship or not? The majority of candidates have supported no path to citizenship but it's an issue left unresolved. And do we have guest worker programs? Even the Heritage Foundation has supported guest worker programs just as the Red Card solution, but others don’t want to see any guest worker program.

Trump has stumbled into a compromise when he told a reporter that he will deport 11 million and allow the good ones to come back; so he has already accepted in principle that many here illegally will be here legally after his immigration reform. The average Americans must truly believe that laws will be enforced and immigration reform will come only after the average American views borders are secured and then aspects of the Trump plan can become the basis of a GOP compromise.