Compromise seems possible on border debate

THE debate over border security, which prompted the partial federal government shutdown, drags on with seemingly with no end in sight. At times, President Trump and congressional Democrats both appeared unwilling to budge. But recent developments suggest both sides are finally inching toward a negotiated compromise and long-term solution.

Trump made the first move. In exchange for Democrats supporting funding a wall along parts of the border, he announced he was willing to support a three-year extension to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants legal status (but not citizenship) to people brought to the U.S. as children. Trump also announced he could support a three-year extension for Temporary Protected Status designations that benefit certain refugees.

This was a bigger concession than it might appear at first glance because it ensures DACA recipients have legal status until after the next presidential election, and a Democrat could win the 2020 race.

Yet Democrats initially dismissed the proposal. This put them in an awkward position, appearing to be staunchly opposed to border security and opposed to addressing the plight of many people whose illegal-resident status was due to actions taken by others.

It soon became clear that Democrats realized this was politically untenable. Reports emerged that party members are now open to giving Trump the $5.7 billion he requested for a wall — on the condition that the money instead go to other border security upgrades, such as drones, X-rays and sensors, and an increased number of border patrol agents.