In a Wall Street Journal piece Sunday about the length of the current partial government shutdown—they’re touting is (as are most of the NLMSM) as the longest on record as though a partial closure is somehow comparable to a complete closure—Kristina Peterson, Michael Bender, and Rebecca Ballhaus closed with a description of a bill being developed by Senators Rob Portman (R, OH) and Jerry Moran (R, KS) that would pair DACA recipient legal status with funding for border security, which would include a wall.

However.

Democrats are unlikely to view the bill as a fair trade, as it swaps $25 billion in border security for legal status—and not a path to citizenship—for the young immigrants….

This would be just another example of the Progressive-Democrats’ absolute refusal to negotiate. Such a bill would move the DACA matter significantly in their direction, with nothing at all to prevent them from coming back later with a bill to move “legal status” to “path to citizenship”—the Reagan move of taking half a loaf today and coming back tomorrow for the other half.

The Progressive-Democrats only know “No,” however.

Some Progressive-Democrats in the House are beginning to wonder about their Party’s strategy for dealing with the border wall funding question, immigration reform generally, and, proximately, the current partial government shutdown.  For instance, here’s Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D, MI):

There’s a number of us on the Democratic side who are quite concerned that we’re not working on negotiated positions and taking the bull by the horns and trying to think about what it would look like[.]

Some are just irrational, like Harley Rouda (D, CA):

Next he’ll want a moat with alligators[.]

Reasonable or foolish, though, Progressive-Democrats must decide—sooner is better—whether they work for their constituents or for their Party leadership.