Trying to make sense of the immigration dispute and why it may kill the plan.

All we knew of what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said to the president, following his "shithole" comment about Haiti and African countries, was that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) said he admired Sen. Graham for having spoken up to the president directly in the moment.  But he did not quote him.

On Friday, Graham released this:  "Following comments by the president, I said my piece directly to him yesterday.  The president and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel.  I've always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals."

Now we have a little more detail, and Graham comes out seeming both courageous and circumspect for not blabbing to the media.  The New York Times quotes from three sources who were briefed on the meeting, saying that Sen. Graham responded to the president "with an impassioned defense of immigrants and immigration as pillars of the American ideals of diversity and inclusion."

They further quote Graham as saying, "America is an idea, not a race," adding that diversity is a strength, not a weakness.  He said he himself is a descendant of immigrants who came to the United States from "shithole countries with no skills."  The report did not say how the president responded to Sen. Graham's comments.

This is in contrast to the duo of Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA), Trump allies who have their own proposal as a rival to the bipartisan Graham-Durbin plan.   Durbin is the one who directly quoted Trump's "shithole" comment.  Cotton and Perdue initially put out a statement saying they couldn't recall the president "saying that specifically."  (There's a lot of wiggle room there.)  By the Sunday talk shows, they were both adamantly saying that the president did not use that word.

So Graham's words, coming from the only Republican in the room who has criticized Trump, have significance in this.  But there's much more to it than "he said, no he didn't."   The meeting in question was for the purpose of Sens. Graham and Durbin -- one Republican and one Democrat -- presenting to the president the bipartisan plan for immigration reform.   Cotton and Perdue also were in the meeting, presumably to try to shape the president's thinking in the merit-based and conservative direction of a plan they are working on.'

Jim Galloway, in his "Political Insider" column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, explains it this way:

"Why, Trump reportedly had asked, did the bipartisan compromise before him allow immigrants from 's---hole' countries in Africa and from Haiti rather than Norway?"  [Galloway then described the 'evolving' memories of Cotton and Perdue as to what Trump said, pointing out that they went from "having no recall of him saying that" to absolute certainty that he did not by the Sunday talk shows, which Galloway referred to as "group amnesia."]

[Galloway]:  "Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon often employed the n-word.  The difference is that their policies, generally speaking, contradicted their internal prejudices.

"Trump's remarks weren't made at a dinner party or in a locker room.  They were made during the formal presentation of a bipartisan compromise on 'dreamer' kids and legal immigration.  His 's---hole' language was a key portion of a policy discussion.

"Perdue and Cotton have allied with Trump to change the way we treat immigration.  Currently, one might describe our manner of importing new citizens as a matter of self-selection.  Those who want the American life badly enough make the effort. . . .

"Perdue and Cotton want a merit-based immigration system.  Entry would be granted to those who, according to some government standard, fit a particular national need.  You can disagree with Perdue and Cotton, but the approach is legitimate and has its precedent in many other countries.

"But we do not permit immigration quotas by race.  Congress has passed laws forbidding it.  And that is precisely what a desire to restrict African immigration in favor of northern European immigration would be.

"This is likely why Perdue's memory of that White House meeting, at first foggy, later hardened into denial.   Because he has the president as an ally, acknowledging Trump's remarks, even with an accompanying condemnation, could call into question the underlying purpose of Perdue's [and Cotton's] own bill. . . .

"Court challenges of federal actions often hinge on legislative intent.  Motivation -- ie, remarks made during debate and formulation -- is important.  Trump's remarks on Thursday will no doubt become part of multiple legal arguments that already accuse him of racial or religious animus.

"Perdue's word dance this weekend, however awkward and -- if others are to be believed -- disingenuous, was the senator's attempt to keep his signature piece of legislation out of that mire."

*     *     *

First, let me point out that Galloway's use of Perdue's name, so much more than Cotton's, likely is due to the fact that Perdue is one of Georgia's two senators.  The political editor of the Atlanta newspaper was trying to answer questions a lot of Perdue's constituents have been asking.

But, second, understanding the political motivation does not make this right.  I fully support the empirical data that show, in general, that immigrants make good citizens.   Despite Trump's continual lying about it, immigrants have a lower crime rate than natural born citizens.   They work harder and, in general, also attain a high educational and economic status.

I'm with Senator Graham and Durbin on their bipartisan plan.  Unfortunately, all of the furor and distraction of the president's language and attitude may kill it.   The DACA deadline runs out very soon.   Graham is probably the key figure here.  Let's hope he has the negotiating skill and the ear of the president -- and uses them well.

Ralph