Reason: "Trump Is Offering The Country A Sophie's Choice On Dreamers"

Reason calls this "an all-out assault on immigration":

In exchange for legalizing Dreamers, it involves implementing aggressive border security measures like building the Great Wall of Trump, mandating E-verify, defunding "sanctuary" cities. Even more alarmingly, it would classify visa overstays as a criminal – as opposed to a civil – offense. This would close off practically all their options for regaining legal status, even if their visas expired not due to any fault of their own but the legendary incompetence of the immigration bureaucracy. It would also criminally prosecute those claiming asylum on allegedly "false" grounds, something that would run afoul of international law that will end up "illegalize" more immigrants than it'll legalize. And he would cut family-based legal immigration without any increases in high-skilled, employment-based immigration.

Fair assessment? Or no?

   A border-spanning wall is Game-of-Thrones-level absurd, obviously. Though I'm led to believe that more fencing may be cost-effective in some spots. And I think that the symbolism arguments against walls/fences are mostly terrible. As is the ridiculous Berlin Wall analogy that was all over for awhile. (Not to mention the Argument From Breathiness (Walls divide [breathy voice]...they divide...)

   But, hey, I thought we were all for E-verify? Are we not for E-verify anymore? When did that happen? 

   Can anybody just tell me what to think about "sanctuary" cities (and counties)? I tend to be against them--but does defunding them transgress principles of federalism? Or what? I'm skeptical of the arguments about policing efficiency...but not extremely skeptical. 

   Eh, turns out I just don't understand enough of this stuff to deserve an opinion. I'm generally skeptical of progressives, libertarians, and neo-liberals who seem to tacitly accept / covertly argue for open borders. But I can't even really figure out what the conservative consensus is.

   I don't exactly see how anyone can be opposed to some form of DACA. I'd think we'd all agree that these kids are Americans. If their record is clean, they stay here. Period. Again, I'm skeptical of attempts by progressives to bootstrap everybody into the country e.g. by passing a version of DACA and arguing that we have to keep families together. Not that it's a crazy argument. But I'm skeptical of positions that basically argue for the most permissive position at every point in the discussion. Vocal sectors of the left are more-or-less pushing for open borders while simultaneously arguing against the very idea of assimilation. This is a deviation from a time-tested template. And it could be a blueprint for disaster--we just don't know. And not knowing is dangerous. (I'm torn on "multiculturalism"--which, as do so many ideas, has benign as well as malevolent interpretations. And: difficult-to-predict consequences.)

   On the bright side: is it just me, or is it becoming somewhat less-common for the media to routinely call anti-illegal-immigration positions "anti-immigration"? Maybe they're just talking about it less.