Border security could be key to saving Dreamers - Page 2

Yes we should. We didnt come this far to have a bunch of idiots exploiting our situation

Border Security and e-verify are doable, no wall, not even Republicans agree on the wall.

Why does it matter what UWD says? Are they the ones who are going to vote in the congress?

I think McConnell and Goodlatte are more key than anyone else at a final legislative stage. In the mid-stage, Hastert rule and the Speaker. For now, it is all just good talk.

Ok listen up, I know sometimes it seems like UWD and other immigrants rights orgs seem to dismiss these negotiations to quickly. I want to give you all some insight on what truly happens in organizer's meeting in these activist organizations. So please just hear me out!

Realistically most of them at UWD, CHIRLA, CASA, and other immigrants rights Orgs KNOW that they may need to compromise and couple DREAM act with some type of immigration security to get Republican votes. They all know that a clean DREAM Act would be best, if it was possible. But they are completely fine with negotiating and allowing the GOP to add border wall funding and other soft core security measures to DREAM Act if it will incentivize votes and ultimately Trump's signing of the Bill.
BUT, they cannot publicly announce are willingness to do. They cannot throw all their cards on the table and expect the GOP not to take advantage of that. If the GOP knew how easily they would agree to add these measures, what would stop them from then asking for more, stricter measures or from amending DREAM Act so that less of us qualify. Please understand that the top tier people in these ORGS usually have years of experience with policy making, years of connections with representative on both sides of the aisle. Our best strategy is to start with a broad bill and allow it to be amended down to something acceptable. Or, in this case, start with a hardline on demanding a clean DREAM Act and then slowly opening up to the possibility of other measures being added.
Policy making is a delicate balance of asking for more than you need/expect to win but also not demanding too much at risk of turning off the opposing party. Its also about going into it with a unified public message (example: We want a clean DA bill passed) but internally having already accepted what we are willing to make a concession on (example: funding wall) and what we are not willing to add on (example: increased deportation or funding for detention centers).
The sooner you come to realize that these publicly loud organizations (like UWD) have an internal strategy, the sooner you will see that they're stances are similar to yours.

And before anyone asks: No, I am not affiliated with UWD. But I have sat on the Boards of some immigrants rights organizations in the past. I have seen how their internal strategies differ from their public statements, and have witnessed their negotiations with Representative and other elected officials behind closed doors. These Orgs have to play up on the reputation of wanting ultra broad legislation so that eventually something more moderate can be passed.

Nothing has ever passed for Dreamers though. Their hard public stance make us seem like entitled brats and makes us lose support. We get fingers pointed at us saying "look at those illegals wanting everything!" Why don't they come out and just say, we are open to compromise.

As mentioned above, if the organizations publicly announce willingness to add on border wall funding, for example, then those that are immigration hard liners in the media will expect those measure to be included before any serious negotiation. Key words here are "publicly announce". It's all a strategic game of what your willing to compromise behind close doors and what you are willing to publicly announce.
On the other side of the spectrum we have GOP reps publicly stating they will ONLY support bills that include substantial border security (like increased funding for ICE, mandatory e-verify, etc). But realistically they know they will have to meet at a middle ground and settle for adding more moderate measures to the DA. But again they will not PUBLICLY announce their willingness to give up on those other "hard-core" measures.

they have a lot of connections