The Mexican government will now deploy 6,000 troops along its southern border with Guatemala and going forward, certain asylum seekers will wait in Mexico rather than in the U.S. until their cases are resolved.
Now, none of that is going to solve our illegal immigration crisis. But it is, at least potentially, a big help, and you would think every American would be happy about it. But no. Democratic presidential candidates spent the weekend complaining about the deal and taking Mexico's side.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.: We need a decent relationship with Mexico. They are our allies, as is the caser with Canada, we should not be confronting them every other day ... Trump's erratic threats and trade policies are not the way to go.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.:The tariffs in general, I thought what happened with Mexico and the way he used that on the immigration issue was just not a good thing.
Beto O'Rourke: Yes, I hink the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. By and large, the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has.
So in case you are trying to follow the reasoning at home: By asking Mexico to stop encouraging an illegal invasion of our country, we are "jeopardizing our relationship with Mexico and it's our fault."
Okay. But the dumbest and most extreme response came, as it always does, from Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey. Having a border at all, Booker explained, is very much like murdering people during the Holocaust.
"As much as he wants to make us afraid of people trying to come here escaping terror --not remembering when we turned away other immigrants trying to escape terror -- there was a ship that came here during World War II with a bunch of folks trying to escape the Holocaust," Booker said. "We turned it around where they got killed in the Holocaust. The shame of that [is] you would think we would learn our lesson about people coming here to seek asylum escaping terror."
So how do you even respond to a statement like that? Maybe it's best to ignore it? But if you take three steps back, what do you conclude from rhetoric like this?
Well, you'll probably assume the Democratic Party loves immigrants. But you'd be wrong. They don't. To the Democratic Party, immigrants are just a means to an end, and of course, the end is always the same -- power.
For the Democratic Party, the more desperate, the less skilled, the less educated a potential immigrant is, the easier to control -- and therefore, the better.
When immigrants to this country become pro-American and call for following our laws -- as many do, by the way -- the left turns on them, too. It happens a lot. It is happening right now to a Gwinnett College professor called Fang Zhou.
Zhou is a legal immigrant from China. He loves the United States. He strongly opposes illegal immigration here. For that, activists are demanding that he be fired from his job. Professor Zhou is not giving in. But the Democratic Party doesn't want more immigrants like Fang Zhou. They are very clear about that. They want immigration that is based on family ties, anything but merit. Why?
Because for the Democratic Party, the more desperate, the less skilled, the less educated a potential immigrant is, the easier to control -- and therefore, the better. And that's why in the State of California right now, the government there is planning to spend hundreds of million dollars to provide free health care to illegal immigrants.
That of course, won't help the State of California. It won't help millions of hard-pressed middle-class Californians. But that doesn't matter. Helping regular Americans stopped being the agenda for Democrats a long time ago.