If Trump's DACA deal is a bluff, Democrats should call it

President Trump tweeted on Saturday night that we had offered a "wonderful" deal on DACA for two reasons: 1) to fix a long-term problem that needed fixed, and 2) "To show that Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it!" 

In other words, Trump doesn't think the Democrats will take a good deal if it's offered to them. It's a bluff. 

It's possible that this is actually a diabolical double-agent, deep under-cover type of a move. He actually wanted to offer a good deal on DACA, but has to put a certain face on it to his immigration hardline supporters, so he's making it look like the offer was all a bluff. But I tend to think that President Trump's pronouncements tend to have a more direct relationship to what's really on his mind than that. I think he really put this deal out there partly because he was pretty confident Democrats would not take it. 

I realize not all Democrats think it's really a "wonderful" deal. It's asking for some significant concessions. I don't think the price of the wall is really the obstacle it's being made out to be. Even Luis Gutierrez was willing to fund the wall in exchange for DACA protections, since the wall will take forever to build and won't really make much difference anyway. But changes to family-based immigration would be a watershed in how immigration has been done. These changes will reduce the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. legally every year.

I think Democrats could mitigate some of this in two ways. One is to ask for some language seeking exemptions for some humanitarian cases. If legal immigrants have aged parents they care for, perhaps they could come, for example. Secondly, Democrats could seek to work with Trump on a plan to expand legal immigration for critical needs. I think the point of Trump's disastrous "shit holes" comment was meant to be an argument for using immigration strategically for the sake of the American economy. (I realize that by trying to make an incoherent Trump statement coherent, I'm doing what his staff does every day, but I really do think that's the semi-cogent thread somewhere at the back of what he said.) 

Democrats could try to build some sort of plan that was forward-thinking both economically and geo-politically. Much of the Arab Spring of 2010-2012 was fueled by the high level of education and low levels of economic opportunity for young people in the Middle East. Egyptian doctors went on strike in 2011, for example, because they were earning so little. 

This could be the seed of a program to bring doctors and other highly-skilled workers to the US. They could be offered much better wages than they currently earn but still good-deal wages by American standards in exchange for working in areas with low access to medical care. It could be good for the economy, help build diversity into the immigration program by opening it up to countries currently under-served, and be a useful form of soft diplomacy.

But Democrats have to swallow a pill to be able to do any of this

Democrats will not be able to influence the deal on the table unless they enthusiastically respond to Trump's move. Trump thinks they won't. He believes, and maybe not totally without reason, that Democrats are so wedded to their #resistance mindset that they would not accept a deal that was exactly what they wanted. The media doesn't help with its constant analysis of who "wins" and "loses" budget battles, instead of leaving open the possibility that America could be the winner. 

But Dems are pretty set on fighting wars of perception on their own. Here's a thought, though. Rather than determining to set the perception of always fighting against Trump, couldn't Democrats embrace this deal with enthusiasm? They could say thanks to Trump for offering exactly what they wanted. They could throw classic champagne-filled liberal parties that Democrats are known for, complete with celebrities. Democrats could just act like this is a win. 

During the State of the Union speech, Dems could giving a rousing standing ovation when Trump mentions DACA. They could refuse to sit down and let him continue before Republicans do. They could praise him in the press. 

To add a wrinkle to it, they could talk about how nice it can be to work with a non-establishment Republican, someone who isn't so wedded to the company line he can't think about what's good for America. They could talk about how they look forward to working with Trump on other issues in common. 

They let Trump have his win, but in doing so, they put the embrace of death around him. Immigration hardliners are already burning MAGA hats over Trump's generous offer. (Not the first time they've done this.) By embracing Trump even a little bit, Democrats could drive a wedge through support from the right. 

But this would take thinking more than one step ahead, something politicians seem unwilling to do in an age when everyone is obsessed with winning today's headlines.