Did you know that President Obama, once known as the "deporter-in-chief," dismissed from the country more than twice as many people, in his prime years of 2010 and 2011, as the Great White Father's administration deported last year? You wouldn't if you spent most of your time with Republicans who get their attitudes from Fox and radio talk. I knew about Obama's title, but I had no idea of the discrepancy -- more than 300,00 human beings vs. fewer than 150,000.
Bloomberg, picking up from a report by the Migration Policy Institute, notes that President Trump is getting all the credit/blame for doing half as much about illegal/undocumented people. And that is true. The Hispanic community in Palm Beach, which consists of naturalized citizens, green card holders, people in Temporary Protected Status, and third generation Americans. That community is currently suffering much more anguish and fear than it did when Obama's Immigration and Enforcement Service rode the range.
The difference is between ladies and gentlemen then and thugs and dunces now. The former head of the Immigration Lawyers Association told Bloomberg: ""Even during the worst days of the Obama crackdown, ICE used its discretion and applied common sense." Now, he said ICE, seems to revel in "tearing up families."
For example, Snopes has film of a raid in which ICE agents, who had a warrant, used bolt cutters to break through a metal screen door to grab a guy who had twice returned to the United States after deportation. His wife can be heard shouting, "Show us the warrant." An agent replies "Ma'am, you're watching too much movies." The agent with the bolt cutters, who was exposed for a full half-minute to any shooter inside, then steps aside so an agent holding a riot shield can lead the way like fully armed whale. Even with the Keystone Kops procedure, it looked menacing. Agents tossed the warrant on the floor when they departed with their quarry.
I have Google send me a daily "alert" to all the ICE stories of the past 24 hours. At least five out of seven days there is a story like that from somewhere in the country to make me gag.
Bluster and thuggery are tools of the current government. The Great White Father seems to be expecting the Nobel Peace Prize for a (shakier today) deal with Kim Jung Un which will result from the GWF's Twitter slamming of the North Korean. Press releases from the various agencies glory in the tsouris the latest reversal of rules will cause among scientists. The GWF's spokesbabbler never wants to talk about what everybody else is interested in. And ICE and the Border Patrol want to instill the fear of severe bodily pain into everyone who is likely to fall under their malevolent gaze.
As the Bloomberg story explains, Obama upped the deportations to show congressional worrywarts that we have control of our borders. It didn't work with Republicans, who know what they want to know. Lamar Alexander, R-Texas, for example, said Obama's efforts amounted to "backdoor amnesty." When he saw he wasn't moving Republicans, Obama dropped the deportation push.
That story, of course, shows that for whoever is president the joy and hope, grief an anguish of untold numbers of marginalized people are grist for domestic politics. The current holder of the office
has expanded the numbers facing deportation by killing Deferred Action and revoking Temporary Protected Status, giving ICE potentially thousands more doors to open with bolt cutters instead of by showing a warrant. Given a little more time, he will make Obama's deportations look like warm-ups in the bullpen. But even without the numbers he has talked his way to the title.
Bannon very early on in the administration said that numbers deported were not important. Rather the important thing is to deport very visibly both to discourage illegal immigration and encourage their base.
ReplyDeleteThe local Hispanic community in our county is mostly from one city in Mexico. They are not interested in visibility. They have a long term project of moving families from their community in Mexico to their community here. Sometimes that means they must go back home, and make the journey through the desert border again, some have done it several times. None of these people are alone, they are all dedicated families doing what is best for their family in the long term both for their community in Mexico and here.
"They have a long term project of moving families from their community in Mexico to their community here."
DeleteThis will freeze the blood of Trump supporters.
The pejorative term they use for moving one's family members here is "chain immigration". Which, when you think about it, is how most immigration occurs. People come, try to get established, and send for their families. It's how my grandfather came; he followed his older brother here when he found Grandpa a job working on a farm. The anti-immigrant people don't like that, but they don't like people sending money back home either. "Cranky white privilege" is what they like.
DeleteYes, my great-grandmother and her children, including my grandfather, came to this country when my great-grandmother's brothers sent for her. All the Belgians in that neighborhood were from the same district in Belgium - it doesn't sound any different than what Jack describes.
DeleteThose family members came just after WWI, prior to the passage of immigration restrictions in the 1920s.
Regarding chain migration: here is how the Economist described it:
"American citizens, both native and naturalised, can sponsor a spouse, children under 21 and parents (if the citizen is older than 21) for a green card without any numerical restriction. They can also sponsor, subject to annual caps, their adult children (and those children’s spouses), grandchildren and siblings. Permanent residents can sponsor their spouses, minor children and unmarried adult children for green cards, subject to caps."
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/01/17/why-is-chain-migration-so-controversial
Note that the immigrant who starts the chain must have legal status - must be either a citizen or a permanent resident (have a green card). Note, too, that the list of those eligible doesn't include aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, more distant relatives or in-laws beyond a spouse. Also, note that some of these categories are numerically capped. Finally, note that, even if the immigrant who is the first link in the chain is a citizen, those who come into the country under these provisions aren't granted immediate citizenship status; they are granted permanent resident (green card) status. Surely that is preferable to having them here illegally.
Possessing a green card can be a step on the road to US citizenship - but isn't it a good thing when law-abiding, productive green card holders become American citizens? It's something to celebrate. And it's not a no-brainer to become a citizen: it takes some years of residency and jumping through hoops.
Whatever problems attach to illegal residence in the US, this program known as chain migration doesn't seem to be related to them. None of the beneficiaries of this policy have illegal status. To my way of thinking, it sounds a good deal more humane than the current dysufunctions we have with those who are here illegally: living in the shadows, living in fear, vulnerable to exploitation by employers, landlords and others - not to mention the various issues associated with enforcing immigration laws that Tom has been highlighting.
As Catholics, we should support policies that support the family. This is one of the pillars of Catholic social teaching; and it's closely related to the life issues that are so central in importance to many conservatives. An immigration policy that provides a pathway to citizenship for deserving and qualifying families seems like a policy we should support.
I was aware that the Obama Administration had set records for numbers of deportations. I never understood it, as it was sharply at odds with his political rhetoric - and what he personally valued. I wouldn't have supposed the large numbers of deportations was in order to curry favor with conservatives, but for the slightly different reason of keeping immigration off the front burner as an issue: if deportations were high, Republicans wouldn't be able to kvetch about immigration. If that is right, then I think it illustrates something pretty dispiriting about our politics and who we are as a people: that Democratic operatives, who generally are really good at slicing and dicing data, have known all along that immigration isn't a winning issue for Democrats. I wouldn't have believed that was the case until the morning of November 9, 2016.
ReplyDeleteI volunteer at the Legal Immigration Services of the Cincinnati archdiocese's Office of Catholic Charities. Tom Blackburn remarks about ICE are all too on target.
ReplyDeleteJack Rakosky's comments are somewhat vague. Have the members of this group of Mexicans organized themselves for the explicit purpose he mentions?
Jim, have Trump's policies and rhetoric about immigrants contributed anything constructive to the formulation of a morally defensible comprehensive national policy? If so, please enlighten me. Whatever the aims of the Mexican people Jack is referring to, they certainly can't be told, with a straight face, "Shame on you."
Bernard, you ask that question as though I support Trump's policies. If that is your impression, please disabuse yourself of it.
DeleteExcellent, Bernard! I laud you for your work at LIS through Catholic Charities. I hope you will talk, to the extent you can, about the kinds of things you do.
DeleteLansing's St. Vincent Charities has an immigrant law center. It lists populations served explicitly: "Detained individuals, Domestic Violence Victims, Farm workers, Human Trafficking Survivors, Individuals who are not in legal immigration status, Individuals with criminal histories, Individuals with physical/mental disabilities, Juveniles, Lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender, Torture survivors."
Yes, Bernard, tell us more about what you do.
DeleteMy own personal knowledge is second-hand. One of the Catholic churches in our ecumenical community organization is made up almost entirely of the kinds of Hispanics I described in the post, mostly farm workers. We got the sheriff to stop having deputies lurk outside of the church after Sunday Mass to nail "suspicious" drivers, and the deputies themselves, for the most part, want nothing to do with ICE. But I don't know how typical it is to have a large, basic population of green card holders and folks in Temporary Protected Status for those who are here without papers to swim among.
And now Trump says it's all the Democrats' fault for his policy of separating families.
ReplyDeleteHe said, '“The Democrats gave us that law. It’s a horrible thing we have to break up families,” Trump said during a meeting with California officials who oppose sanctuary city policies."
Strains of Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" dance through my head.
And who cancelled DACA? (By a signature that looks to me -- when he holds it up and smirks like a newly potty-trained kid -- like "Richard Attenborourgh," not "Donald J. Trump." Just sayin'.)
DeleteJim, you're right. I'm out of my depth. I'm just not up to playing in your league. So sorry!
ReplyDeleteGood luck with your volunteering. If you ever care to engage amicably, I'm still here.
DeleteShould We Let in People Not Like Us has been a vexed question for centuries. In lit class, I used to make the kiddies read Franklin's screed about the Germans in Pennsylvania. Here are some extracts from a WaPo article a couple years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2015/08/28/founding-fathers-trashing-immigrants/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a62b44cabcf
ReplyDeleteTensions over letting "those people" in can, sadly, be exploited by demagogues and even those who were considered rather cosmopolitan in their day, like Franklin.
As far as I know, however, Franklin never advocated deportation, which I think ought to be limited to those who actually commit felonies.
When trying to suck up to Republican politicians, doing something nasty seems a logical path. But they will say it's not nasty enough. You must PUNISH THEM. Make them HURT.
ReplyDeleteH/T to Deacon Greg Kandra at The Deacon's Bench blog for pointing to a NY Times story reporting that Trump characterized illegal immigrants thusly: "These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before."
ReplyDeleteKandra then provides a series of magisterial quotes supporting human dignity. There is much, much more he could have pointed us to that is specific to immigrant rights as well.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2018/05/these-arent-people-these-are-animals/
Briefly, I apologize for offending Jim. We have deep disagreements about the moral status of free market capitalism that we're not likely to resolve. That's no reason for me to be offensive.
ReplyDeleteAbout immigrants. There are multiple categories, at least seven. of them. Each has its own legal implications and enforcement issues. At present, the Trump administration has given lots of leeway to ICE officials in how they deal with these different sorts of immigrants. It has also countenanced conduct that is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality, to say nothing of its moral character. Coupled with the steady stream of public discourse from the president and his appointees about the "deficiencies" of these immigrants, the climate of fear among both well documented and undocumented immigrants it is hardly surprising that many immigrants, both legal and illegal live in constant fear of the authorities. Local officials, e.g., sheriffs, are wild cards. Who knows what they will do for what reasons?
All the office that I volunteer in can do is to try to help immigrants of whatever category satisfy whatever governmental requirements they can have the documentation to satisfy. Our department's resources are eminently competent and dedicated but constantly overwhelmed by the demand fo their services.
Complementing the specifically legal efforts of the agency in which I volunteer are programs to teach English to adults as a second language and programs to secure employment for these clients. The staff is remarkably competent and sympathetic. Again, too much to do with too little.
Our office also coordinates its efforts with other religious and civic groups trying to alleviate the unnecessary burdens immigrants are forced to bear.
Understand that I do very little for this agency, just two mornings a week as receptionist. Its the staff that bears the psychological burden of having total with such needs with such meager resources.
I live with well-to-do retirees, most of whom are nice people, but dense about the realities of the immigration issue. Sometimes I lose patience with them and those who suggest that we have to be more attuned to their anxieties.
That's no reason for me pass judgment on them, but often I do so nonetheless. That's my fault and i repent of it.
This is part of the background that led me wrongly to snap at Jim. I apologize to him.
Bernard, thanks. I'm aware that I need a good kick once in a while and I took your words in that spirit :-).
DeleteI'm also glad that you're volunteering for Catholic Charities, and I take to heart your observation that the demand far outstrips the supply of services they're able to offer. Having done some work over the years with Catholic Charities, I would add that, at least here in Illinois, most Catholic Charities programs are government-funded and so those programs are vulnerable to cuts in government assistance or delays in government payments (and in Illinois we've seen both). So I always heartily recommend that anyone with a few spare bucks donate to Catholic Charities. Any funding that makes them less dependent on the vagaries of politics and government funding is welcome. Their leadership is uber-responsible in ensuring that donations go to programs that help those in need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete