The Daily - Thursday, Jan. 11, 2018

Episode Date: January 11, 2018

When President Trump announced that he would end the Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, he gave Congress six months to make it law. Otherwise, many undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children could be deported. As the clock counts down, why is the president making the program his problem once again?Guest: Michael D. Shear, a White House correspondent for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily Watch. Today, when President Trump announced that he would end DACA, he made it Congress's problem. They had six months to pass a bill, or tens of thousands of undocumented children could be deported. As the clock counts down, why is the president once again making it his problem? It's Thursday, January 11th.

Okay. Good morning. I'm here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama administration is being rescinded. The DACA program was implemented in 2000. Right. So it was September 5th, I believe, of last year, almost two-thirds of the way through the president's first year in office. And Attorney General Jeff Sessions went out at the Justice Department and made this dramatic announcement. General Jeff Sessions, went out at the Justice Department and made this dramatic announcement. To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest,

we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. It's just that simple. The administration was rescinding a program called DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Michael Scheer covers the White House for The Times. It was a program that was set up originally in 2012 by the Obama administration as a way of addressing a particularly sympathetic group of people. They were brought to this country by their parents,

sometimes even as infants, and often have no idea that they're undocumented until they apply for a job. And so the Obama administration had put into a place a program that said, look, let's carve out this group of people and say, we're not going to deport them. We're going to give them the ability to get a work permit so they can work here legally.

It makes no sense to expel talented young people who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. And that was the status quo for something like five years, from 2012 to 2017. The compassionate thing to do is end the lawlessness, enforce our laws, and if Congress chooses to make changes to those laws,

to do so through the process set forth by our founders. But it's actually not that simple, right, That suddenly the president, through Jeff Sessions, is just shutting down DACA. That's not exactly what he does. Right. I mean, look, part of the interesting thing about President Trump is that he is somewhat conflicted on this issue. The DACA situation is a very, very, it's a very difficult thing for me because, you know, I love these kids.

I love kids. I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do. And has a long history of expressing some of the same sympathies towards this group that others do. Actually, a little known fact is that President Trump in 2013,

long before he was a presidential candidate or had even sort of given thought about running for president, he met with a group of these young immigrants. They're known as dreamers. And as I understand it, Gabby, you were in that meeting with Donald Trump a couple of years ago. That's right, Alan. And he met with them in Trump Tower, sat around a table, had a long discussion with him. And, you know, he asked the typical questions that people who are not well-versed and don't understand the immigration movement that is happening in the country. So we were able to explain some of those things to him. And then at the end of this meeting,

as they rode down the elevator, one of them told us that he looked at us and said, you know, rode down the elevator, one of them told us that... He looked at us and said, you know, you convinced me. You know, we left there thinking, wow, Donald Trump understands and was able to hear us out and really ask questions that some people would be embarrassed of asking, but we were able to give him the answers to, yeah. That has clearly stuck with him. So even on that day, on that September 5th day,

when he sent out his attorney general to end the program, President Trump had managed to figure out a way to do two things on the same day in pretty dramatic fashion. On the one hand, he found a way to satisfy the sort of super conservative, anti-immigrant part of his base, which had always hated this Obama-era program. They had seen it as an executive overreach, that Obama had just sort of waved a magic wand and kind of exempted this group of immigrants from sort of the normal immigration laws. And so by sending out his

very conservative attorney general to end it, he satisfied that part of his base. But at the same time, and the reason why it's not so simple and why it's pretty interesting and dramatic on that day, is that literally the moment that he did that, the moment he ended the program, he also challenged Congress to fix it. Developing tonight, hours after the Trump administration announced it was phasing out the DACA program over the next six months, President Trump tweeted, Congress now has six months to legalize DACA, something the Obama administration was unable to do. The end of that clock is March 5th, after which, if they don't act by March 5th, everyone knows that that's sort of the day that many, many of these young immigrants will start being affected by this.

I have to say, this strikes me as kind of a brilliant stroke on the part of the president, if it works. He doesn't alienate his supporters who put up an office and who have real reservations about something like a DREAM Act. But were Congress to solve this, were Congress to pass legislation protecting these DREAMers, it would actually be far stronger and more enduring than what President Obama had done, which was an executive order, or what Trump would have done by just

furthering the executive order. Right. No, exactly. I mean, look, President Obama tried to take the legislative approach during his time in office. And I've said time and time and time again to Congress, send me the DREAM Act, put it on my desk, and I will sign it right away. They just couldn't get it through Congress. So the DACA program was an executive action that President Obama did out of frustration because

he couldn't get the legislation passed. You know, fast forward to President Trump, and if he can, you know, help Republicans and Democrats in Congress to come together and actually do a version of the DREAM Act that was tried and failed several years ago, it will actually be a much more permanent solution, a much better solution for these young immigrants, because at the end of the day, they won't be subject to the whims of the next president who comes into office. They will simply have become permanent residents of the United States and, depending on how the legislation would be written, might have an opportunity at some point in the future to become citizens. So what's Congress been doing in the four months since this six-month clock started to countdown?

Are they trying to solve this problem? six-month clock started to countdown? Are they trying to solve this problem? So Congress does what Congress always does, which is they don't ever do things simply, right? You know, it's never as simple as just let's take this one issue and let's talk about it and debate it and vote on it, right? So both sides looked at this question of how to deal with the young immigrants and said, how can we improve our leverage, you know, so that we get what we want? It is going to be an eventful few days on Capitol Hill. Let's get to Ilan Mouy, who can set the table for us on that. Ilan, good morning. Good morning, Carl. Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi have said they are

willing to support a deal that would raise the national debt limit for three months. Now, that is the offer from Democrats, but it's unclear if Republicans will accept it. What I do think is very interesting is the wall is so critically important to him and DACA and maintaining it is so critically important to Democrats that he is using that as the ultimate bargaining chip here. Will he get his way? So both sides started posturing. There was this remarkable dinner. The president, late Wednesday, working around his own party, hosted Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi at the White House. Well, we had an invitation, Chuck Schumer and I, Leader Schumer. On the menu, tax reform, border security, infrastructure, trade, and how to resolve the dispute over so-called dreamers.

The president said, you know, he supported the DREAM Act. And they sort of talked it through with a bunch of aides there. And what everybody said was, oh, we've got a deal. The president and the Democrats agreed. A deal on DACA. A deal on DACA. After the sit-down, the Democratic leaders announcing, we agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly and to work out a package of border security,

excluding the wall that's acceptable to both sides. We're not going to tie the wall to dreamers. That's a very, very good thing and good progress. I've told him over and over again. At one point, he said to me, go easy on the wall. I said no. But the minute that that dinner ended and everybody left. President Trump is pushing back this morning against Democratic claims that they have a framework for a deal to save nearly 700,000 young immigrants from deportation. The president tweeting a short time ago, no deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent would be subject to vote. The normal partisan mechanisms in Washington kicked in.

And so within, I don't know, a few days, a couple of weeks, it was pretty clear that whatever quote unquote deal both sides might have thought had been struck, like there wasn't a deal that was sealed that night. And so for that reason, this six-month clock that you've been describing is still ticking with no deal. Right. There's no deal. And ultimately, that's what led the president to invite members of Congress from both parties and both chambers to the White House on Tuesday for what ended up being this remarkable discussion, hour-long, you know, broadcast on television, where they really sort of confronted this question and how to solve it. We'll be right back. So, Mike, what happens in this televised meeting at the White House on Tuesday?

Well, thank you very much, everyone, for being here. I'm thrilled to... The president gathered all of these lawmakers around in the cabinet room. We are here today to advance bipartisan immigration reform that serves the needs of the American family. Normally, the press is brought in for just the first couple of minutes and then led out so that the meeting can happen in private. In this case... Maybe the press can stay for a little while and a couple of folks can make statements. The press was brought in and then they were just allowed to stay as the meeting went on and on and on for almost an hour. And I think we're going to come up with an answer. I hope we're going to come up with an answer for DACA. And then we go further than that later on down the road.

And everybody in all the different sides were trying to make their point. So you had the Democrats. We need to take care of these DACA kids. And we all agree on that. Eighty six percent of the American public agrees on that. Nine hundred of them are members of the U.S. military. Twenty thousand of them are school teachers. Repeatedly trying to make their case to the president that, you know, let's just do this very simply, Mr. President. Let's just take the DREAM Act and let's pass it, right? Like not get bogged down by a lot of other stuff. Lives are hanging and the ballots are getting the job done. And then on the Republican side. I saw two recent terror attacks in New York that were the result of this, I think, failed

immigration policy. We'd like to see that fixed. You had a bunch of the Republicans urging the president, not so fast. We're going to address the border enforcement and security and the wall. Let's make sure that we do this as a package and that, you know, makes more sense for their constituencies. But if we do not do something with the security, if we do not do something with the chain migration, we are fooling each other. And then there was one moment that crystallized the tension in that back and forth when...

Senator, would you like to say something, Diane? Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat of California, a veteran of the Senate for the last several decades, sees an opportunity and takes it. What about a clean DACA bill now? an opportunity and takes it. What about a clean DACA bill now? Tries to convince the president that the best way to go is to just do a clean DREAM Act, something for these young immigrants

without loading it up with a bunch of other things. I have no problem. I think that's basically what Dick is saying. We're going to come out with DACA. And the president seemed to agree. I would like to do it.

Go ahead. And, you know, you could sense that the Democrats in the room were like, wow, that's like a real moment. To be clear, though, I think what Senator Feinstein is asking here. And then Representative Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California also, and in the leadership in the House, and was somebody who you could see it on his face. He realized that this was... Like a panic. Yeah. DACA without security. Are you talking about security as well?

Well, I think if we have some meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform, that's really where the security goes. The president had just sort of seemed to suggest that they were going to sort of abandon all of their efforts to get tougher immigration restrictions on who can come into the country, tougher enforcement at the border. It's kind of like three pillars. DACA, because we're all in the room wanting to do it.

Border security, so we're not back out here. And chain migration. There was sort of back and forth between Feinstein and McCarthy. Do you really think that there can be agreement on all of that quickly? And of course, we know from coverage of the president over the whole year that oftentimes where he ends up is in the position of whoever whispered in his ear last. So you could see around the table and in that moment, both sides trying to be that voice in his head, sort of the last voice to convince him to go one direction.

Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. So then what happens? So the meeting breaks up at the White House, and it was really only a few hours later that... A new roadblock to the Trump administration's move to NDACA. A federal judge in California issues a ruling on this very program, on the DACA program.

A federal judge blocking the Trump administration's decision to end the Dreamers program on March 5th. Essentially what the judge said is that the president's decision back in September, on September 5th, when he had the attorney general announce the end to the DACA program, that decision was essentially illegal, that the administration had not followed the proper procedures to end the DACA program. And you can't just take something away with a stroke of a pen. And he issued a nationwide injunction, basically said the government has to restart the DACA program and start giving back those benefits to people. Now, you know, the trick here to restart the DACA program and start giving back those benefits to people. Now, you know, the trick here is that the legal process moves slowly, and it's not at

all clear with the appeals that are likely and what impact the legal case will actually have. And in the meantime, the political process is continuing. And I think talking to Democrats, Republicans, the White House, there is a real sense that even though the judge's ruling on Tuesday night was, you know, amazing that it came on that same night of the White House meeting. But that really, at the end of the day, nobody expects the legal process to be the one to solve this, right? Like, everybody understands, ultimately, the political ruling on DACA that's quite consequential? We have no transparency into the judge's decision making. My suspicion is that it's not accidental, you know, that the judge has been considering this case for, you know, weeks now, if not months. The lawsuits were filed back in the fall.

And I have no reporting to suggest one way or the other. But did he decide, hey, this is not a bad opportunity, this is not a bad moment to release this decision? It's certainly possible. Mike, it seems like whether the timing of this ruling was coincidental or not, it offers an explanation for why President Trump, after trying to make DACA Congress's problem rather than his problem, has now come back to this issue and is trying to help get a bill passed. this issue and is trying to help get a bill passed. Because all last year, we saw him using executive authority to deal with immigration, with the travel ban, and just getting blocked through the courts over and over. So is this court ruling just another example of something that President Trump seems to have already figured out and is exhausted by, which is that executive action

is just legally fraud and temporary and not a real way to get a problem solved. Yeah, I think you're exactly right. I think it is a reminder of the risks that you take when you try to make big, broad, consequential public policy outside of the normal legislative process, and that the judge's ruling in this lawsuit underscores better than anybody could possibly have done, that, you know, when you make policy that way, it becomes completely, you know, sort of wrapped up in this legal quagmire that you've got, you know,

judges in California and appellate court judges and ultimately the Supreme Court, you know, likely to get involved in a process that ultimately shouldn't be about, you know, judges and legal questions, right? It's ultimately a question of what's the consensus in the country of what should be done with these young immigrants. Even as the legal and the political process goes forward, that's the question that's hanging over these children, is what will their fate be? And will it be resolved with some kind of an ultimate political solution, or will it continue to be uncertain and left to the whims of,

you know, kind of uncertain legal process? And that's what we don't know the answer to yet. Thank you, Mike. Yes, sure. Happy to do it. On Wednesday, prominent House Republicans came forward with a proposal for a strict immigration bill that directly clashes with President Trump's efforts at a bipartisan deal. The proposal would crack down on illegal and legal immigration and offer three-year renewable work permits to DACA recipients without offering them a path to citizenship. While the plan is unlikely to make it out of the House, it signals how difficult it could be for Congress and the White House to come to an agreement. At the same time, some liberal Democrats are adamant that they will not vote for a government funding measure without a deal on immigration. And funding is set to expire on January 19th.

Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday morning, in a nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration, The Trump administration dispatched federal agents to raid nearly 100 7-Eleven stores, resulting in the arrest of 21 undocumented workers. In a statement, the director of immigration and customs enforcement said the arrests, quote, send a strong message to U.S. businesses that hire and employ an illegal workforce. ICE will enforce the law. And if you are found to be breaking the law, you will be held accountable. And... Your legal team, sources have told us,

believes that in the next few weeks, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, will ask for some sort of an interview with you. Are you open to meeting with him? There has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians or Trump and Russians. No collusion.

Under questioning from reporters on Wednesday, President Trump refused to say whether he would grant an interview to the special counsel in the Russia investigation, a request the White House expects in the coming weeks. That marks a shift for the president, who back in June said he was, quote, 100 percent willing to testify under oath in the investigation. But at the White House on Tuesday, Trump was noncommittal. Would you be open to it?

We'll see what happens. I mean, certainly I'll see what happens. But when they have no collusion and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you'd even have an interview. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.