Epshteyn's Slanted Take on DACA

Here’s Boris Epstheyn’s recent “Bottom Line” editorial on DACA, with some corrective commentary interspersed.

Looks like the big meeting at the White House will happen after all. Last week, the Democrat minority leaders of the House and the Senate attempted a public relations gambit when they turned down the president’s invitation to discuss pressing year-end items. The biggest key, funding the government beyond the deadline of December 8th.

Notice the use of the phrase “public relations gambit.” This frames the interaction as a game with “players”, “winners,” “losers”, etc. 

One could make the same point and maintain a degree of objectivity by simply saying that they “declined the meeting,” but that wouldn’t skew the perspective, which is Epshteyn’s goal.

The reason given for the Democrats not heading down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was the president’s tweet expressing skepticism that a deal is possible which includes both government funding and a resolution on DACA. Now, they are willing to talk it out.

Epshteyn uses the phrase “expressing skepticism” to sum up the following statement by Trump (presented verbatim to capture the odd capitalization):

So, Trump wasn’t simply “expressing skepticism.” He insulted the senators by diminishing them (“Chuck and Nancy”—Imagine if one of them had called the president “Donnie”).  He then misrepresented their positions (to put it mildly), and said “I don’t see a deal!”   So, this wasn’t merely “skepticism.” This was a statement for disdain for the people themselves.

 Why would making sure that the federal government has money to operate and pay millions of employees be connected with figuring out what to do about 800,000 illegal immigrants? It shouldn’t be. Democrats, however, have decided to hold government funding hostage in order to try and force a solution they want on DACA.

Another telling metaphor here: the Democrats are holding government funding “hostage.”  This frames Democrats as criminals breaking the law, while, by implication, Trump and Republicans are victims/law enforcement.

There is also an obvious detail left out.  DACA isn’t about “800,000” illegal immigrants.  It’s specifically about those were brought to the U.S. as children and have lived here virtually their entire lives.  Americans overwhelmingly want these people to be allowed to stay in the country. 

In fact, another fact that Epshteyn leaves out is that it isn’t merely the Democrats who are calling for DACA to be part of the budget process.  The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, also wants this to happen.  Why? Because not finding a way to keep these people in the country would be politically and financially disastrous.  However, he cannot call for DACA to be taken up on its own, because enough of his own caucus are so anti-immigrant that they would halt it.

The last time there was a government shutdown, that was in 2013, it cost our country $24 billion dollars over just a 16-day period, according to Standard & Poor's ratings agency. That should not be allowed to happen this time.

Epshteyn leaves out that the government shutdown in 2013 was precipitated by Republicans in Congress, and it was precisely because they wanted to bundle another policy issue—funding for the Affordable Care Act—into the process.

Here is the bottom line: we all know the federal government will be funded sooner or later. When Chuck and Nancy meet with the president they should bypass grandstanding, and go right to making a deal as they did in early September. Putting a federal budget in place should not be held up by a policy disagreement over illegal immigration.

Again, Epshteyn says that it’s wrong to include policy disagreement in the debate about funding the government, but intentionally omits that the GOP did precisely this in 2013 and that, in fact, GOP congressional leadership is calling for DACA to be involved in the discussion for their own political reasons.  And, of course, Epshteyn himself engages in the cutesy “Chuck and Nancy” name calling.  Remember, he did work for Trump.

The bottom line on this “Bottom Line”? Epshteyn takes what could be a principled position—that debates about government funding should be as free of other matters as possible (although since all policy involves the budget, that’s hard to imagine)—but undercuts his own argument by overtly framing it in a metaphorically loaded way, leaving out relevant details, and engaging in double standards.