user371119

"If Immigration was properly Restricted you would no longer be troubled with Anarchy, Socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils!" This cartoon is not recent. It was published in 1891 as an anti-immigration wave swept through the U.S. That same sentiment is being felt now. ⬇️ Shortly after Trump's reelection I wrote a lengthy piece about the challenges we face in finding common ground in the immigration debate. Given the controversy over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's wrongful deportation to El Salvadorean prison—a fact acknowledged by the Trump administration in the Supreme Court ruling—I'm posting it again. Again, it's long, but try to get through to the end, as what you may realize is that we're in a mess of our own creation. —————————— Why Trump Is Right about Immigration...and Is Still the Wrong Person for the Job I'm likely going to upset both "liberals" and "conservatives" with this, but the bottom line is that I believe both extremes are wrong and are further dividing us. This is also a very long reflection, so feel free to digest it in bits and pieces. Trump is right to take more decisive action by enforcing our immigration laws. As someone who lived abroad for nearly two decades, I experienced firsthand what it's like to be an immigrant and deal with the differing legal procedures in other countries. Many Americans frankly don't comprehend what can be involved and assume, without evidence, that we implement draconian measures compared to other nations when the opposite is true. I'll use my home of 15 years, Thailand, as one example. Even though I'm married to a Thai national, hold three degrees, worked for an organization with some of the richest and most influential people in the country, and earned over six figures, here are just a few of the aspects of living there as a foreigner that I had to accept: • Having to report my address to the government every 90 days (which had to be done in-person for most of my time there until the last few years) • Being unable to own land (meaning the land that my wife and I purchased was only in her name, and the only legal recourse was for me to "inherit" the home in the event of her death, which still wouldn't grant me rights to the land) • Being unable to own my own business (as all businesses must have 51% Thai ownership) • Having restrictions placed on my type of employment (since a significant number of professions are open only to Thai nationals) • Needing to renew my visa and work permit every single year (as it's not simply issued until canceled) • Being unable to acquire Thai citizenship (which is a laborious process that typically results in only a few hundred people being granted it each year) To be clear, there were plenty of positives, from the significantly lower cost of living to the world-class health care at a fraction of the cost to the incredible food and travel opportunities. However, all of those positives came through adhering to the legal processes and respecting the laws and customs of Thailand. When we moved back to the United States a few years ago, my wife applied for her green card. It took a year and a half, and during most of that time she stayed in Thailand while I stayed here in the United States. There are ways in which we could have attempted to circumvent that, but we ultimately felt it was better to go about it through the proper process. That commitment to doing things the right way is what makes the "liberal" arguments so frustrating. When most Americans call for immigrants to be deported, they're referring to a very specific group: those who entered the United States without a valid visa or temporary grant of stay, or have overstayed their visas. Why, given how stringent other countries are in enforcing their laws for Americans and all other foreign nationals, should we simply be asked to embrace illegal immigrants? Why should we throw our hands in the air and say, "It's okay...you chose to break our laws while others did it the proper way, but we'll figure out how to allow you to stay"? We're in effect rewarding illegal behavior. Similarly, why are some so opposed to a wide-scale deportation effort that targets those who have committed crimes (which encompasses the initial groups targeted by the Trump administration) and those who have chosen to retain their illegal status for decades in some cases? Again, this is precisely what happens in other countries: when you commit a crime or you attempt to stay illegally, you can and will be removed regardless of any other factors, just as I saw multiple times in Thailand. I even see no issue with Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship. It is specific and targets one single aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment: whether its application extends to those born to illegal residents. For those who instinctively bristle over this, once again consider that most other developed countries, including virtually every European nation, offer no such benefit for those residing in their borders illegally. Furthermore, consider that you're interpreting this the wrong way: if either parent is a U.S. citizen or even a lawful permanent resident, birthright citizenship still explicitly applies under Trump's order. Given that point, why precisely are so many up in arms over this? To be clear, I'm not anti-immigration. If anything, it's the opposite. I believe that America flourished because of its openness to people of all backgrounds, creeds, and ethnicities. I believe that we will continue to flourish if we maintain our commitment to the words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" These two views are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in the positive, lasting effect of immigration while still calling for firm, swift enforcement of our laws. Given this fact, some may be asking why I believe Trump is the wrong person to solve this issue. This is where it gets a bit more complicated, so bear with me. In full disclosure, a significant part of my opposition to Trump results from a vast range of other factors, all of which I've thoroughly documented on the website linked in my profile. Specifically in relation to immigration, however, it's a combination of several factors: the conflation of illegal immigration with immigration in general, the need for legislative reform versus executive action, and the failure to account for our own country's role in creating the immigration "crisis." Threaded throughout these three points is an underlying issue that I see as moral rather than legal: the need for basic human compassion. The first of these requires a fundamental understanding of the processes involved with immigrating to the United States. Broadly, those seeking to come here can apply for differing types of visas, from those reliant on a relationship with a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to those issued for studying or working. In all of those cases this is typically done prior to arrival, though in others (such as a student completing their university studies and applying for jobs), it can be done through a change of status. However, there are other legal means of coming here, most notably through refugee and asylum applications. Both of these are not new; they've been in place for decades, and it was often Republican administrations that shaped the policies that contributed to the current restrictions and processes. It's important to understand that these two methods differ: applying for refugee status must be done in a different country, but applying for asylum can only be done in the United States or at the border. The implication should be clear: many of those arriving at the border are in fact doing things the proper way, and when they're released into the country, they do indeed have temporary lawful status. As for the number of immigrants this represents, it's significantly smaller than many would expect: just 4% of all immigrants. Yet these are the people so often attacked and condemned by "conservative" commentators. If you want to be angry with someone, focus on those who truly do enter illegally. The chances are high that you're targeting the wrong group in that case: of the approximate 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States, a significant number entered on a valid visa and overstayed. As a percentage that group has been growing for over a decade. Now consider who is most likely to have been granted a visa in the first place. It's often not those from Mexico, Central America, or South America, but rather countries with plenty of white faces. Yet the focus of so much vitriol continues to be those who happen to have darker skin. Finally, the number of legal immigrants in the United States far outstrips those here illegally, and when we focus so much on ethnicity and appearance as a benchmark of belonging, we fail to acknowledge that the 23.4 million naturalized citizens and 11.5 million lawful permanent residents—a large majority of whom are Latino and Asian—earned the right to be here and did it the proper way. Yet time and time again Trump rails against specific groups, and you can bet that they aren't the ones with white faces despite the significant proportion of visa overstays within the illegal population. Time and time again he fails to acknowledge that those who have sought asylum did go about it the proper way. This simply inflames people, confuses the issue, and hinders rather than helps. One could certainly make the argument that the asylum and refugee processes are archaic and need reform, but that's not the fault of those who follow those processes. This closely relates to the second issue: we need better laws and policies. If more than 35 million people came here through the proper methods, why have millions of others chosen to enter illegally or overstay? Consider once again what I mentioned about my wife's own green card process, with a husband who is a born American citizen: it took a year and a half, and that was when we share five degrees between us, have significant savings, have a history of travel between Thailand and the United States, and have been married for over a decade. Despite all of those points being in our favor, if you think a year and a half was long, you'd be wrong. The average length of a visa application for many can extend into not just years, but decades. The length of time alone further disregards the desperation that they often feel due to not having any of the advantages that my wife and I had, nor the resources to support their family throughout those years. They wait years and years in limbo until finally giving up on the process. This isn't the fault of any one politician, nor is the fault of any one party. Both the Republicans and Democrats have failed time and time again to implement meaningful legislative change to address the lack of funding, the lack of staffing, the inefficient protocols, and other flaws within our current immigration laws. However, executive orders won't fix this. By taking aggressive unilateral action and failing to clearly and articulately define the scale, scope, and end goal, we veer dangerously close to a precedent that will will further disrupt the system of checks and balances in line with his other decisions. Finally, Trump's single-minded devotion to deportation fails to address the last and most significant issue: the root causes. Our relationship with Central and South America is, to say the least, fraught with poor decisions, exploitation, and inconsistencies. In 1823 President Monroe coined the approach that would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine: "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." His commitment to preventing further European influence in the Americas was largely defined by non-intervention until the late 1800s when global trade began to create a demand for coffee, bananas, and other imported products in the United States. Rather than establish what would now constitute a free trade agreement, our government chose to empower companies like United Fruit Company that exploited the people and natural resources of other nations. Their power can't be understated; in some cases these companies had almost entire control over the governments and economies of those countries. Simultaneously, President Theodore Roosevelt adopted an application of the Monroe Doctrine that came to be called the Roosevelt Corollary. This included support for Panama’s declaration of independence from Columbia to ensure the completion of the Panama Canal, and military interventions in the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Though branded a mandate to spread democracy and peace, these actions typically defended the economic interests of the U.S. at the expense of citizens and workers in those countries. By the end of World War II, corporations had dominated entire nations for decades—particularly in Central America—to ensure the flow of goods. This created widespread deforestation, environmental degradation from pesticides, harsh working conditions, and inequality. Frustrated by the long-lasting political instability, lack of social mobility, and foreign influence, many people began embracing pro-worker movements, including socialist ideologies. This was not an embrace of Marxism in most cases but rather an effort to fight back against long-standing oppressive regimes. The Roosevelt Corollary heavily influenced U.S. interventions during this period, particularly after World War II when fears of communism were stoked by Joseph McCarthy. Throughout the Cold War, U.S. presidents alternatively supported pro-government and anti-government movements in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean to combat alleged communist threats. This was accomplished by sometimes openly supplying arms and training fighters, and sometimes covertly spreading propaganda or influencing political shifts. Richard Nixon directly supported military dictatorships and criminal actions during Operation Condor, an effort by authoritarian leaders across multiple South American countries to consolidate their power. They represented despotic regimes in every case, using violence, censorship, and torture to control their populations. Eventually we interfered militarily and politically in almost every single Central and South American nation, including by overthrowing several democratically elected leaders. As the 1960s began, counterculture movements in the U.S. created a huge demand for recreational drugs. This led to a vast increase in the volume of cocaine and marijuana being smuggled into the country over the following decade, fueled by demand from one group in particular: white, affluent professionals. In many cases Central and South American governments were too fragmented to combat emerging cartels or were even complicit, relying on their financial support to maintain power. As they expanded rapidly, those cartels consolidated smuggling routes across Central America—already destabilized by decades of U.S. policy and civil wars. They bribed and infiltrated police and officials, allowing them to act with complete impunity throughout the region. Highlighting its inconsistent approach, the U.S. sometimes even funded groups involved in the drug trade, such as Manuel Noriega in Panama and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Ronald Reagan intensified the "War on Drugs" to disrupt the growth in trafficking, but it ultimately worsened the problem. The existing regimes, already repressive in their tactics, further escalated the levels of violence, driving their people to support the cartels in many cases. Others, lacking any other options, relied on coca and marijuana production for their livelihood. When Pablo Escobar, leader of the powerful Medellín cartel, was killed in 1993, the drug trade became more fragmented and difficult to control due to the power vacuum, leading to further chaos. This again contributed to people fleeing across borders to seek safety and economic opportunities that were unavailable in their home countries. By the time the 21st century began, the effects of climate change began to be felt more keenly worldwide. However, this was even more pronounced in Central and South America. An estimated 20,000 or more deaths occurred over the last 25 years due to hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and droughts. When including the disastrous 2010 earthquake in Haiti, that number climbs to a staggering 250,000. The impact of these events has been exacerbated by the underlying conditions created from decades of deforestation, soil depletion, and economic disparities. Those bearing the brunt of each disaster often already suffer from poverty, a lack of access to food and healthcare, and limited housing options. With little to no support from their governments—burdened by continued corruption and few resources—victims often face limited options: turn to gangs and cartels for protection and income, or flee to other places that offer better opportunities. At this point the issue should become clear: there is nowhere else, and the people fleeing to the United States from these regions have experienced a century of chaos, caused in large part by our own interference and policies. Tellingly, there was a man tied to many of the people who took those actions. He was McCarthy's right hand during the Red Scare. He helped orchestrate Nixon's rise to power and advised him in his approach to governing. He later supported Reagan's presidential campaign and introduced the president to another friend: Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News. Throughout decades he maintained close ties to Republican hawks and conservatives who encouraged continued interference in South America and claimed a moral high ground, all the while flouting his own use of imported cocaine that fueled his wild personal lifestyle. That man was Roy Cohn, Donald Trump's eventual lawyer, mentor, and friend. Trump's many rants about immigrants never mention this, nor do they acknowledge the complexity of the issue, nor do they address the need for legislative reform, nor do they encourage common ground. When so many call for compassion, understanding, and empathy, this is what we mean. A vast majority of people seeking to come to the United States do so for the same reason our own forefathers did: an escape from poverty, persecution, war, and natural disasters. They want to work hard, build a life, and help their families flourish. My many years abroad gave me a critical view of my home country, but it also instilled an appreciation for its strengths. We will never meet our continued potential if we don't hold firm to our laws and ask that those who come here abide by them. Yet we will also fall short if we refuse to acknowledge our past mistakes and finally demand that all of our chosen representatives work together to build a better system of immigration. And if both conservatives and liberals continue to dig in their heels and refuse to find common ground on this issue, perhaps we've already failed.

"...the difference isn't as crazy as it sounds." Actually, it's crazier than it sounds. nitter.cf/ddtmatter/status/19115…