Shutdown resolution may be as easy as calling a minor deal a major one
The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19. Credit: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock
This latest partial federal shutdown could easily have been avoided. It still can just as easily be ended because there always appears to be a way to spin a win for those who need to show one.
Under one scenario, first discussed months ago, both houses would agree to let noncitizens brought here illegally as children avoid deportation, while the many years' worth of ongoing improvements to border security would be accelerated.
Trump can call this project his "concrete wall," or his "beautiful slats," or a "metaphoric barrier" if he chooses to spell that on Twitter. He can brand it as whatever he wishes — and has.
Republicans and Democrats who sign on to this compromise could then say they protected "dreamers" while making the border less porous.
If that deal proves too big a lift, the Congress could simply agree to increase funding for border security.
Democrats can call this an extension of the status quo, even if it's short of the $5 billion the president demanded. Everyone knows Trump can turn mundane advancements such as these into the most important American act of resolve since the Normandy invasion.
If such a deal isn't a win-win, at least it's a not-lose, not-lose. And it would get federal employees back to work.
Adding funds for border fencing should be a light lift this season. The GOP in Washington seems to have dropped all concerns about the deficit, which is now projected at $985 billion for fiscal 2019 and rising. Defense spending is headed for a record too — which gives plausibility to the president's past blurts that he can get the military to pay for the "wall."
Unfortunately for Democrats about to take over the House majority, compromising with Trump right now might amount to acceding to abuse. The president frequently condemns partisan rivals as treacherous villains favoring open borders. He blames them for terrorism, deaths, what have you.
Talk of changing immigration laws with both houses under GOP control went nowhere. Negotiating strategies have been absent. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) approved a simple funding extension to Feb. 8 — before the lame-duck Republican majority in the House and partisan media voices protested, evidently frightening the president away from supporting it.
Since the standoff began, members of Trump's administration who administer border policy have been speaking in a more down-to-earth voice than the president's invective would suggest.
Over the weekend U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said the death in custody of two children from Guatemala was "“just absolutely devastating for us on every level" but all had been done for their well-being. Trump offered no such words.
McAleenan also articulated a more practical explanation of the administration's $5 billion border-barrier request than the White House has offered since Trump's shutdown began.
“It's about 215 miles of wall system,” he told ABC News. “What we’re talking about is not just a dumb barrier. We’re talking about sensors, cameras, lighting, access roads for our agents, a system that helps us secure that area of the border. That’s what we were asking Congress.”
That sounds like the kind of thing that's always been negotiable in Washington. In fact, barrier upgrades went on for years before Trump took office — with his party in control of both houses.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
