Jeff Sessions won't oppose DREAM Act in smart ways
As you can see on the DREAM Act page, there are valid arguments against that anti-American bill, arguments that can be used to show its supporters wrong. There are also much better ways to deal with "DREAMers" than to allow them to remain in the U.S., and arguments for that can also be used to undercut those who support the DREAM Act and its implementation-by-executive-fiat, DACA.
Unfortunately, I wasn't selected to be Donald Trump's Attorney General, but instead Sen. Jeff Sessions was. And, Sessions can't make those arguments. Instead, he waffles on the issue and seems to support legalizing the DREAMers in one way or another. It's in the national interest to make smart, persuasive arguments against the DREAM Act and DACA, but Sessions can't make them. Instead, we get this :
President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general pick, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), tried to skirt questions about the fate of young undocumented immigrants by saying Congress should work together to pass immigration reform - even though he has prominently opposed every recent attempt to do so.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wasn't having it.
"There is not a spot of evidence in your public career to suggest that as attorney general you would use the authority of that office to resolve the challenges of our broken immigration system in a fair and humane manner," Durbin said to Sessions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Tell me I'm wrong."
...Sessions said that Durbin was "wrong" about what his record indicates he'd do as attorney general, but he also defended his support of limiting immigration and increasing deportations.
"I believe the American people spoke clearly in this election," Sessions said. "I believe they agreed with my basic view and I think it's a good view, a decent view, a solid legal view for the United States of America that we create a lawful system of immigration that allows people to apply to this country and if they're accepted, they get in; if they're not accepted, they don't get in."
He was less direct, however, about what should happen to so-called Dreamers, the young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, if or when Trump ends President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The program has granted more than 750,000 undocumented young people temporary work permits and authorization to stay in the country.
Sessions opposes DACA, and said he would not object to Trump ending it as he's promised to do.
"It would certainly be constitutional, I believe, to end that order and I would - the Department of Justice, I think, could have no objection to a decision to abandon that order because it is very questionable, in my opinion, constitutionally," Sessions said.
But he was reticent to say what should happen to current DACA recipients. In December, Trump said he was "going to work something out" for Dreamers "that's going to make people happy and proud."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports ending DACA but also advocates protecting Dreamers through legislation, asked what should be done for them.
"I really would urge us all to work together," Sessions said. "I would try to be supportive to end the illegality and put us in a position where we can wrestle with how to handle these difficult, compassionate decisions."
"And the best way to do it is for Congress and the administration to work together and pass a law, not an executive order," Graham responded. Sessions agreed...
I know what Trump enablers are thinking: Sessions is just leading them on about that law: he and Trump would oppose comprehensive immigration reform efforts if they were proposed, as Sessions has in the past. And, that might be the case. Or, since Trump has already repeatedly hinted at legalizing millions of illegal aliens, he and Sessions could find an amnesty they agreed with.
So, doing things the way Trump enablers prefer has huge risks. My way would be to make intellectual arguments against the DREAM Act and DACA that would make them politically toxic. That way most politicians wouldn't dare support amnesty. That has less risk for the USA.
- The way Trump enablers prefer is to run the risk of amnesty, hoping that - despite what he's said in the past - Trump will oppose it.
- The way I prefer is to intellectually vanquish amnesty so it won't even be tried.
Which of those ways is better for the USA?
 huffingtonpost . com/entry/