Or Saudi Arabia
There are 10,000+ USA citizens that are victims at the hands of illegal immigration every year, and the drug problem screams for better border security as well.
As for what type of deal can be made? Funding what Trump wants, which represents something like less than .05% of the total USA federal budget in exchange for badly needed infrastructure problems
Democrats were actually for a fence/wall when Obama was president. Why change theri tune now? The answer is obvious, they do not want to give Trump another political victory and are okay doing nothing at the expense of USA victims.
90% of drugs crossing the border come through ports of entry. The vast majority of fentanyl, for example, comes from China through normal express mail. How does a wall help that?
Because what they voted for was a reasonable, workable idea to secure the border. They voted for a package of fences in some places, sensors in others, and drones in others. Trump just wants a wall with his name on it - an obviously stupid idea to anyone who thinks about it for ten seconds.
I am not a citizen or resident of the USA but one idea mentioned further up sounds really appealing:
Strong and nationwide gun control against border wall funding.
Let’s see which one is more important to his supporters.
I like it.
There would be cries of “Wall? What wall?” throughout the land.
You could even pitch gun control measures as “necessary to keep guns out of the hands of undocumented aliens and potential terrorists.” The MAGAts would buy it.
I think a Grand Bargain could happen. Something along the lines of:
-
Full funding for the wall. $25 billion
-
A pathway to citizenship for everyone here illegally. Now, some details should be in place. The person would have to prove that they were in this country as of a date certain. No rush to the borders until the law takes effect.
All persons wishing to participate in the (give it some cute acronym) program must register by a date certain. Registrants are exempted from deportation and criminal penalties for remaining here. Any persons illegally entering the country after that date are guilty of a felony. A person physically present in this country illegally and not registered are guilty of a felony. No person convicted of a felony is eligible for the program.
Once in the program, a person shall gain citizenship in 10 years if the guidelines are followed. The person must learn English. The person must seek gainful employment. The person shall not commit a felony. The person must pay a $10,000 civil penalty due in 20 years, at least $5k of which must be paid in the 10 year period and must be paid before citizenship is granted. The U.S. had an immediate judgment for this amount and acts as a lien on any real or personal property.
-
States shall assist the feds in enforcing immigration laws or face a 10% reduction in their federal highway funds.
-
All legal immigration after the date of the registry shall be on a merit based system with no quotas to countries. If a UK citizen would be eligible, then a Mexican citizen is eligible.
-
When Mexico reached certain GDP benchmarks and reduces corruption in government based upon some UN scale, and the crime rate declines to a certain level and drug gangs are imprisoned, the wall shall be removed in certain stages based upon these benchmarks until when Mexico joins the first world, the wall will be gone.
At the end of the day, Trump gets his wall and can say Mexico paid for it. The Dems get to say that Mexico did not pay for it that U.S. citizens did. The Dems get to say that they got amnesty and Trump can say no. What say ye Dopers?
If Trump weren’t an incompetent, irrational toddler, who changes his mind 10 times a day and who couldn’t be trusted to stick to an agreement to trade school lunches, then maybe this would be an interesting proposal.
All that needs done to hold Trump to his word is to put all of the proposals in a single bill which he may only sign or veto. If he vetoes it, then nobody is screwed out of anything. We are just back to square one.
Okay, perhaps. I don’t think the hard-right, which right now dominates the GOP, would be amenable to any sort of compromise that they could label as amnesty.
It’s not amnesty. 
That’s what your side gets to say and claim victory. Our side denies that it is amnesty and we claim victory for the wall. We have to get our talking points straight!
I consider an amnesty to be similar to a priest granting absolution. My proposal requires effort and the payment of a penalty. By its very nature it separates the “good,” those coming here for a better life and wanting to become part of our society, and the “bad,” those here to rape and pillage and mooch off of the underground system.
In any event, there is no political will for mass deportation, and the continuing and overt violating of the immigration laws make a mockery of them. There has to be a compromise.
To the first, mass deportation would cause incredible suffering and human rights violations, as well as the visual/historical record of government agents rounding up families who are just trying to survive. It’d be monstrous, and that should be the first objection to it, not that there’s no political will.
As far as compromise, I don’t believe that the current iteration of the GOP is capable of it. This is Trump’s party, and the extreme right’s party, and they’re not interested in any compromise on immigration.
If this were on the table, I’d laugh so hard I juuuuust might pee my pants.
For example, US taxpayers would be on the hook for $25 billion to build a stupid wall in spite of multitudes if better ways to spend the money.
Then eventually, US taxpayers would have to spend billions to take it down? It’s an idea only Trump would love.
We ain’t giving Donnie a wall. No way, no how. Don’t propose trades, don’t suggest ‘bargains’ or ‘compromise’. We’re not playing.
Pass. Dems can get an even better deal if they wait. Plus - appeasing the ego of a failing president is just the wrong example to set, period.
Counter-proposal: Of the 20 House investigations of the Trump family likely to be active next year, we offer to drop one or two in exchange for full amnesty for persons registered as undocumented migrants as of a certain date. No wall, ever.
I thought your side was open to negotiation after the shutdown ended?
That is negotiation my man. This is what negotiation looks like when your side is weak and unpopular. c.f. “The Art Of The Deal”, Trump, D. J., Random House, 1987.
Of course if you don’t like that, there’s always total capitulation 
Yep,
Counter-proposals are not rare in negotiations, unless, of course, that being a great negotiator was something that Trump was not. Not surprised really.
Well, shit. I tried at least. I think your position is just going to cause the “emergency powers” to have the military build the wall and leave 12 million people in legal limbo. But as long as it pisses off Trump, I guess it’s worth it.
He will be even more pissed then when the courts disagree with both the wall and immigration issues.
Again; Trump should negotiate, with counter offers present too, not to follow the dictates of the right wing fringe.