<p>In a move that oddly rejects their own platform, Democrat leadership rejected a proposal from President Trump unveiled in a televised Saturday address to the public.</p>
<p>The ‘Immigration Compromise Package’ would have immediately ended the partial shutdown and would have included litigation proposed by them previously including a 3-year extension of full protections for over 700,000 DACA recipients living in the United States. It also would have gotten President Trump his wall funding; assumedly why it was shut down in apparent defiance of any chance of compromise by Democrat leadership.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-immigration-offer-brings-polarized-reactions-from-dems-and-gop">Fox reports</a>, “In a televised White House address on Saturday afternoon, Trump offered Democrats a three-year extension of protections for 700,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, in exchange for the $5.7 billion he has been seeking for a barrier along the nation&#8217;s southern border with Mexico.”</p>
<p>Democrats quickly displayed they had no intentions of coming to the table, instead rejecting the proposed concessions before the television address even took place. Speaker Pelosi would write on her increasingly frequented Twitter,</p>
<p><em>“Democrats were hopeful that </em><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"><em>@realDonaldTrump</em></a><em> was finally willing to re-open government &; proceed with a much-needed discussion to protect the border. Unfortunately, reports make clear that his proposal is a compilation of previously rejected initiatives.”</em></p>
<p>The ‘Immigration Compromise Package’ would, in all honesty, have actually addressed a lot of concerns the Democrats had previously cited as major issues, as well as popular bi-partisan reforms. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46935595">The BBC explains</a>,</p>
<p>“He said he would also extend the visas for TPS holders for three years. More than 300,000 people from countries affected by war or disasters are allowed to work in the US under TPS, another system Mr. Trump has opposed.</p>
<p>There were other proposals, including $800m in urgent humanitarian assistance, 2,750 more border agents and security officials and 75 new immigration judge teams. Certainly, the latter conforms largely with Democrat suggestions.</p>
<p>The president said his proposals were <em>&#8220;reasonable with lots of compromise&#8221; and would &#8220;build trust and goodwill.&#8221;</em></p>
<p><strong>Who’s Obstructing Who?</strong></p>
<p>The reality from a pragmatic objective standpoint here (something in increasingly short supply) is that Democrats just rejected a proposal that would have satisfied several supposed major concerns of theirs (after all the ‘Dreamers’ were a cornerstone of midterm rhetoric). The reason? 5 Billion in wall funding which is massively dwarfed by most other budgetary expenses the US incurs on an annual basis (something the shutdown has now taken up almost 1/12<sup>th</sup> of).</p>
<p>It seems somewhat ridiculous in terms of consistency for Democrat leadership like Pelosi to lament the supposed cruelty of Trump to the 800,000 or so federal workers currently awaiting compensation to then turn around and refuse a package that would have included large concessions to their platform leaving those people in limbo.</p>
<p>More hypocritical would be the endless fervent vocal dedication to the cause of the DACA dreamers. Democrats constantly lament their struggle yet here turned down a deal that would have ended the anxieties of those Dreamers with a three-year extension.</p>
<p>A three-year extension, it’s very much worth noting, that would have hypothetically carried over into the Democrat president Pelosi and her cohorts seem so ‘certain’ lies on the horizon? or perhaps not&#8230;</p>
<p>The grim reality is when it comes to those who fall under DACA, as well as those hurting without their paychecks, Democrat leadership appear to be engaging in a trademark tactic of using vulnerable populations as bargaining chips and political playthings, rather than truly representing their interests on Capitol Hill.</p>