ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick

Joseph Sabino Mistick: The Dreamers & the American dream

| Saturday, Jan. 27, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
Cinthia Osorio of Dover poses at the offices of Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center in Morristown, N.J., where she works as a community organizer. The 22-year-old is a DACA recipient who has been outspoken about needed legislation to give a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. (Bob Karp | The Daily Record via AP)
Cinthia Osorio of Dover poses at the offices of Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center in Morristown, N.J., where she works as a community organizer. The 22-year-old is a DACA recipient who has been outspoken about needed legislation to give a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. (Bob Karp | The Daily Record via AP)

It is a grainy television clip from 1980, but it has more punch now than it did back then. As George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan slugged it out in a debate for their party's presidential nomination, the conservative Republican icons disagreed on many things but found common ground on immigration.

When asked if the children of illegal immigrants should be permitted to attend public school free of charge, like all other children in Texas, Bush spoke first.

“If they're living here, I don't want to see 6- and 8-year-old kids being made totally uneducated and made to feel like they're living totally outside the law. These are good people, strong people,” Bush said.

Reagan, who eventually won the nomination and chose Bush as his running mate, went even further: “Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit. And then, while they're working and earning here, they can pay taxes here. And then when they want to go back, they can go back. Open the borders both ways.”

Barack Obama, a liberal Democrat, followed suit and kept the American dream alive for nearly 700,000 children of illegal immigrants, brought here by their parents. He created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the young people who are protected by that program are called Dreamers.

Immigration is still the big issue, but Donald Trump is the conservative Republican icon now, and the future of the Dreamers is in his hands.

Last week, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Franklin Graham, son and successor to the Rev. Billy Graham, made headlines by weighing in for Trump, even though polls show that his evangelical support is slipping. Both acknowledge Trump's shortcomings, but both cite his pro-life stance as a big reason for their continued support.

And the real test may be whether Trump protects the Dreamers. National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference President Samuel Rodriguez recently said, “To those members of Congress committed to life: It doesn't finish when the baby is born. Womb to tomb.”

Even Trump, who keeps changing the deal he is trying to cut in exchange for honoring DACA, once tweeted, “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!”

According to Perkins, Trump is “a very transactional president.” To that end, Trump sometimes seems to be using the Dreamers as poker chips, trying to leverage their future for something else he wants. So it remains to be seen if he will put a price on the American dream.

Whatever Trump decides, he has political cover, because his most zealous supporters will follow him anywhere. His now-famous claim that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any support seems to be holding true.

So, when it comes to the Dreamers, he can do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer (joemistick.com).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me