Here's a contribution from a reader who wanted me to share their thoughts (which they emailed me) anonymously:
"Thinking about how do we know where we are going if we don't know where we came from? Finding our personal immigration story, not the generic condensed version is key to understanding what we came from and how we got where we are. Along the path of finding our ancestors we will also find the untold history of the United States. We've forgotten our individual threads and the part they play in the fabric of us. It's always a story of immigrants. And it's also the story of community that helps us survive and thrive. How can we understand where we are going if we don't know where we came from?"
I live in New York City, one of the places with the most migrants. I think of the migrants as people who in the short run require a lot of services, but in the longer run will be a great addition to my city. They have generally had to endure a lot to get here and that speaks well for their perseverance and their ambition. In time, they and their children will add to the life of the city significantly in both economic and cultural terms.
This is an anecdote. My family supports a public middle school in Washington Heights that has had its share of new students who are migrants. We recently heard from the senior administrators of the school about one new student from Mexico, an orphan, who made it here by himself to meet up with his uncles and grandfather. They live in a "double-up," meaning one room for two families.
This boy is off the charts smart. He wants to be an immigration lawyer. I wouldn't bet against him being able to do whatever he sets his mind to.
Also, NYC gets additional funds from the state for every new student so the migrants help the school budget.
In America we have a declining birthrate. We need immigrants. We've always needed immigrants. Almost all of us ARE immigrants/ descended from immigrants.
We should be worried when people like the boy I described DON"T want to come here.
I love this perspective and thank you for naming it. Are their NYC politicians who have been strong voices for this perspective-- from afar, it's been depressing to primarily read headline after headline about Eric Adams' rhetoric on the matter.
I think everyone's focused on the immediate drain and not thinking about the longer term. To be fair, the immediate cost is sizable so it does present a near-term financial issue. The money has to come from somewhere. But I wish it could be addressed as a financial issue of how do we pay for this, without the anti-migrant spin.
It is heartening to see a lot of grass roots help for the migrants with donations of food and clothing. So there are definitely people who feel as I do.
The additional revenues for the school system is something I learned about recently, but that doesn't get much airtime.
I work in public higher education at a community college, which is, at least here in the Midwest, where one finds the most diverse population, and I enjoy that aspect of it tremendously. Living in Iowa (not a place that's well known for it's diversity) but you wouldn't know that if you walked up and down my halls or sat in one of my classes.
It burns me that my state supports students at private colleges more per capita than they do at my public college. Education to me is such a key part of how we can equalize the playing field in the face of socioeconomic equality, and we can move us forward as a civilization and a society.
I think about this quote from Stephen Jay Gould here and there, and I think it fits to this situation.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
Obviously, everybody's experience is different, but have you learned anything interesting from your immigrant students' reflections on Iowa? In what ways (and in what spaces) they've feel welcomed? In what ways they haven't?
I have had students that are extremely appreciative of the access to education, and others that were resentful that previous education that they had in their country would not transfer over. Some love the opportunity to learn, others frustrated at expectations that come with higher ed in the US (online homework via computer for example).
One student in particular did not enjoy the food. "It's too sweet, they put sugar in everything here."
I've worked pretty closely with students who identify as minorities due to an NSF grant, and the worst lesson I've had to deliver a student who came from a different country is how racism can present itself in public settings. This was before George Floyd, but I remember talking about potential issues with police and being believed by other students or faculty.
Thanks for sharing these different student reactions, Ted. This is what I have seen too, and that's what is so frustrating to me when people don't realize that migrants all have their own stories. And there are also little ways in which schools can be more welcoming. I was working with a school in Boston with a huge Vietnamese immigrant population, and they wondered why parents weren't more involved in their kids' academic lives. When I asked if they ever held a welcome meeting for those families outside of the HUGE open house, they said no. When I asked if they ever considered the working hours of immigrant and working class families, they said no. Welcoming families isn't just a vibe, it's an action, and often schools aren't doing enough.
I really appreciate your bringing in the community college angle— I’m curious if it’s your experience that a sizeable number of community college students are immigrants enrolling as a way to maintain status.
This was how my partner (who came to the US from Brazil 20 yrs ago) figured out staying for quite a few years early on; she’s talked about many of her fellow students being in the same boat. She had to pay entirely out of pocket, went to the cheapest school in the Philly area, and while she doesn’t speak very highly of having to go through all that, does speak about many of her professors and how remarkably kind, supportive, and understanding of her and others tenuous situations (financially, legally…)
This was more common prior to 2017. The election that fall started a shift away from the number of students who had a student visa from coming to the college. The number of students I had coming from Asia (mostly China) fell off a cliff. Most of my student immigrants are from Africa. Sudan has not been a stable place, and a lot of my students are from there.
Hoo boy. Can of worms on a Thursday, huh? I have no answers, just anecdotes. Caveat: my family migrated here in 1983 from Vietnam. We were lucky because my aunt married a white American soldier she met during the American War in Vietnam, and he sponsored us legally to come to the United States. And I say "lucky" because immigration policy back then was that you had to choose one family to sponsor, and patriarchy meant that my aunt sponsored by father since he was the oldest in her family. He was the oldest of 11, and all of his nine siblings remained behind in Vietnam until we could start the arduous process of becoming American citizens and then sponsoring them, one by one. And I say "lucky" because we did not have a deadly or arduous crossing by boat like so many other Vietnamese refugees.
Because this is my story, and I was a career teacher, I have told this stories in many classrooms over the years. When non-immigrant teachers were teaching about The American War, or immigration, they called on me to come to class and teach. I didn't mind doing that because at least I was telling a true story, which is more than I can say than the history textbooks that I grew up learning from.
So I guess my suggestion is to ask people besides white men to talk and make decisions about migration and immigration. The topic is so complicated and nuanced. We all know that, so why are the same people who have actually not experienced what they want to make life-changing decisions about the ones talking?
Once, I was on my way to a classroom to do my whole immigration story, and a white colleague stopped me. She asked me what I was doing, and I told her, and she said, "well, we're all immigrants aren't we?" Um, actually no. You are from Connecticut. The presumption is preposterous and dangerous. This story sticks with me because I feel like migration discussions sound like that white lady. We are presuming lots of things about different people and situations. Not all immigrants or migrants are the same. Let's start there.
Listen, just a chill Thursday conversation! And I do think that this is really, really wise, and puts so much better why I woke up this morning really struggling (in particular after reading that Times article). We keep going back to the well of starting the immigration conversation as a "problem" that must be managed or solved by the government, which of course is almost entirely made up of individuals without direct first or second generation immigration experience. And so we're not even starting from the experience and perspective of migrants.
Also, I love so much that you've stepped into the breach of misunderstanding and biased/wrong history in the schools you've worked... has that ever gotten exhausting?
From now on, this should be the answer to literally every political question.
So I guess my suggestion is to ask people besides white men to talk and make decisions about _____________.
The topic is so complicated and nuanced. We all know that, so why are the same people who have actually not experienced what they want to make life-changing decisions about the ones talking?
Oooh, I had not thought about the larger political landscape, and I like how you did this. That IS what I want, and I didn't even know it even as I wrote it. Thanks for helping me see that!
To answer your question: yes, it definitely can be exhausting being the Representative of Immigration (especially in entitled private schools), but you know what? The students always make it worth it. This is my teacher bias, I know. But I’m not even talking about only wide-eyed young kids; the cynical older ones come around too. I might be their closest contact to an immigration story they can ask questions of, and who will answer them. They are curious, and that openness gives me energy.
Thanks for this discussion as I feel like I just don't know enough to even begin coming up with what policies I should support. I'm overwhelmed by the flood of rhetoric, most of which seems couched to make political points for this election cycle, not taking the long view or trying to alter the political landscape to prepare for any policy decision. I will definitely be reading all the comments!
As for the consequences of what the US did to destabilize this hemisphere, I don't think most Americans know the historical record. Regardless, are they willing for the US to take any responsibility for those actions? If not, is this linked up with "just get over it already, don't make me feel guilty for a past I can't control?" How much of it is compassion fatigue, exacerbated by the homeless crisis here and so much suffering from war and famine? How much is driven by explicit and implicit biases about skin color, ethnicity, and not speaking English? I don't know. I don't know so much right now.
I think that there's a real power in the kind of questions you asked: "why is it hard to care?" "what about immigrants, especially from certain parts of the world, is particularly scary?" "what is your actual experience with immigrants?"
We learned over the past few years, that to migrate to Portugal, you have to already have a job (there waiting or a remote job), insurance that has at least $31,500 worth of coverage for the year, and you have to submit financial records showing that you will not be a burden on the state.
I mention this because I think it's interesting that Portugal is considered very close to a socialist country, in my understanding. Of course they do have refugee policies that are different than this, although I'm not sure what they are.
Which, to me, is all evidence that the issue is f*ing multi-layered everywhere.
My experience with Portugal (my Brazilian partner and I spend a lot of time there- a few months every year) is that yes, they have had a socialist government for the past few terms, and a lot of their policies are pretty good for taking care of people....but, much like the US experience of immigrants, it very much depends on who you are/class and color of your skin.
The "digital nomad" and golden ticket visa situations were designed for certain types of immigrants to bring their outside incomes and wealth into a relatively poor country. How they treat most Brazilians and other people from former colonies is a very very different matter. My partner has to endure all sorts of harassment every single time she's entered and exited (and she's viewed as being in a "higher class" by living in the US/fluency in English). It's lessened dramatically in the past couple years since she receive her US citizenship and travels there on a US passport, but even this past November, the passport control woman hassled her over whether she had enough money to be there for a month (she's a senior level creative at a large advertising agency, so, uh, yeah she does!).
Interestingly, there's been a huge movement of protests about those "fancy" visas, and the government has been rolling back the programs over the past year or two because they're seen as contributing to extremely high housing costs. Lisbon is one of the most expensive cities in Europe relative to what the median income is.
I appreciate both of these perspectives. I think both past and current discourse re: immigration throughout Europe are both really troubling/fascinating because they are revealing that the welfare states that a lot of countries rightfully pride themselves on were, more often than not, built on an assumption of continued exclusion (in particular exclusion of Black and Brown people from former colonized states).
The answer, of course, isn't "the entire idea of having generous welfare states is the problem," but "how do we transition from being places built to be welcoming to some to places that are welcoming to all?"
Hahaha I'm also spamming my own comments section, but the "digital nomad" experience and its impact on gentrification is an extremely under discussed aspect of immigration rhetoric. There's so much focus, for example, on assumed narratives of what poor migrants either from Mexico or who came through Mexico are doing "to" the United States, but far less focus on the ways that neighborhoods throughout Mexico City are becoming unaffordable in part because of U.S. digital expats who are welcomed with open arms.
I appreciate DR’s excellent comment. When we begin exporting hope and opportunity- rather than War and Dominance, we may begin to see the Benefits of Loving and Supporting the Opportunities of Others- Our “Not Me - Not My Responsibility “ isms- oppress Our People and Others- We are increasingly learning that: take your pick> women’s, girls’, Bipoc, Queer, Trans etc Rights DON’T Matter- be an Ally- Support Ourselves- through supporting “The Others”- We All Matter!
I couldn't agree more, and as always so well put George. I think the tricky thing is how to help encourage more of our fellow folks in the U.S. to immediately show the same welcome that David articulated so well up above for the folks who are arriving right now (as a result of our exporting war and dominance for so long), long before we get to see the different world that could be true from exporting hope and opportunity. I do think a big part of it lies in what you noted though-- making sure we stay loud and proud of supporting everybody, both migrants and everybody who is too often under threat. The less we're zero sum the better.
I saw Origin last Friday and can’t help but think how much of this is tied up in Caste. We’ve stratified so much of society into who is at the top, how their meant to act, and what they’re meant to look like that we focus on the “crisis” of brown, poor people at the southern border and ignore the fact that more people on the terror watch list come over the northern border. I’m not sure this helps the conversation at all. It’s just where my thinking is.
On the other hand, one thing that gives me hope is the Chicago Refugee Community Connection group I’ve joined on Facebook. It’s a group of mostly women who act as sponsors for registered refugee families--getting them acquainted with idiosyncrasies and necessities of living in the U.S., as well as helping them acquire housing and furniture and jobs. The amount this group does with free stores and Christmas presents and crowdsourcing is inspiring. And it has spawned a second group meant for welcoming new immigrants from South & Central America who are staying at police stations and in shelters.
As a former teacher of refugees in Chicago, I love that Facebook group you mentioned, and it makes me even happier to find that they are expanding their gaze to the asylum seekers who are currently stuck at shelters and police stations right now. I think that "being pro immigrant" is such an abstraction for so many, that there is value in people learning from the story of U.S. citizens who are trying to make their lives more interconnected with immigrants.
I work as an immigration paralegal, although we do business and family immigration so I have almost no experience with the "border crisis" and asylum issues that seem to be what most people think of when the topic of "immigration" is raised. Even in the privileged realm of employment-based immigration, however, our systems are fully broken. I think that's my first thought-- it's that the headlines reduce immigration to a "border issue" when it actually covers a huge swath of scenarios, and those who are at the more privileged end of it are often shocked to find that it's restrictive across the board. A U.S. citizen obtaining a green card for a spouse, for instance-- it's a gauntlet, even if you are rich and marrying, say, a Canadian. Filing fees are high (a new rule just passed making them even higher!) and processing times completely unpredictable but usually very long. Oh, and if you make a mistake it can be catastrophic. I don't really know what to DO with this information, in the context of the public discussion about immigration, but I still wish people knew that the process is a nightmare, full stop, not just punitive for those who are "breaking the rules."
My other thought is idealistic and harder to articulate, but it has to do with how immigration policies are full of assumptions about the relative value of persons. I reject the notion that any person is more valuable than another, but our immigration policies are completely predicated on notions of value, not just in terms of “desirable” vs. “undesirable” immigrants, but even just within employment-based immigration, the options are very dependent on type of job and credentials held. I don’t think our issues with racism etc. are even being realistically addressed if we’re still accepting, on any level, that some people are better/more desirable (or even, euphemistically, “better for the economy” or “contribute more to society”) than others. But it’s hard to imagine any immigration system that isn’t rooted in “merit based” judgments. Then I end up questioning the point of the whole endeavor. And that’s just in the abstract—of course we’re living in a complicated set of existing circumstances and systems, and I end up feeling too idealistic to comment, even while having a lot more practical knowledge than many highly opinionated people.
I completely share your views/values on the worth of all people, but, I confess, I'd trade any 10 MAGAs for just one of the women who participated in the early 90s market women's movement in Togo, or any of dozens more similar movements before and since.
All of this is so helpful (really appreciate the insight about all the ways the system is broken), but your second paragraph really cuts to the core of why it's hard for me to articulate a practical aspiration for the system-- short of no borders/no citizenship at all, any system we end up with is going to end up assigning relative merit and value to people (and you articulated so well while that just feels contrary to my values).
I'm an old white guy with all the privileges. Folks should feel free to stop reading right now.
I litigated some asylum cases in the 90s; I won very nearly every case, which is 0% attributable to my skill as a lawyer, and 100% to the non-profit I was working with that vetted cases. I have no idea how many they turned away, but no doubt whatsoever that there are plenty of legit claims from people coming across the border. I see no reason at all why the feds should not be fully funding this branch of the thing: more judges, clerks, lawyers, courtrooms. I'm not looking for drumhead justice here -- I think we really can throw money at this aspect of the issue and make real progress in getting asylees out of limbo and into our society.
(Just as an aside, my asylum cases were capital cases: the clients had all had family members beaten, some to death, as a result of their political activities, and would be themselves killed if we lost. It was a privilege just to meet people who'd stood up to dictators [mostly in Africa] let alone give them the chance to enrich and improve our society.)
More generally, IMO we have space in our society for the kinds of people who are taking extraordinary steps to get here, and ought to be welcoming way more immigrants than we are. I'm not going to do the calculations, but I'd not be surprised if corporate greed at the top was a bigger factor in depressing wages in the lower income bands than immigration.
Speaking of asylum funding . . . they just issued a final rule on Tuesday adding a $600 "Asylum Program Fee" to filings for employment visas. I'm not sure about the politics of this one, but it sure feels like it will increase negative feelings toward the asylum program, even/especially within a demographic that might otherwise be interested in immigration reform.
Absolutely agree, Charley. And I do think sharing the stories of asylum seekers, as you shared here, are an important part of the case we have to make. Yes, it's bad to have an underfunded system and a backlog for a ton of reasons, but one of them is that asylum seekers have often braved the worst, and centering their stories matters.
Immigration lawyer chiming in. This prompt is... in my lane.
Another substacker I follow, who also happens to be an immigration researcher wrote a post that immigration dialog has moved out of the realm of fact based, routine, paper filing, processing of how people get in and out and has moved into a specifically wedge political issue to be used for party ideology, and that framing resonated with me.
There is so much misinformation about the border and how immigration actually works and often the dialog get pushed into box of how do we "feel" about people immigrating and whether they have a right or a reason to immigrate, when really we should actually have anything to say about that at all. It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately and that there are options for people to migrate saftely and efficiently (there is a whole set of law and treaties for this). Right now we don't have a functional safe system, since we underfunded the immigration processing agencies, dredged their staff in the *rump administration, and reduced ways for people to migrate or even just visit the U.S. We've manufactured our our border crisis, and more and more people don't have any other options than to just show up and "get in the line".
I wonder if we started talking more about what makes an immigration system functional and why can't our elected pull that off, if it would take the focus off folks just trying to use the freedom to move and more on the people who won't let them.
Very, very happy to clear the floor for an immigration lawyer in our community :). This is really helpful for me to read. I think the line about how "It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately..." No need to reply to this, but how would you respond though to the conservative counterpoint "well, we can get on board with that, but we're still concerned with people coming here surreptitiously, because they're [insert one: jumping the line, not participating in the process, etc.]." I have some initial thoughts there, but would love your more informed perspective if you're up for it.
A couple thoughts, if the concern is people not fitting into the process, or not participating in the processes, why are conservative legislators (or all of them right now actually) so adament about shutting the processes down? Shouldn't they want to clean it up? Processing at the border is one big line. People are sitting in that line, becasue all the other shorter, quicker lines are closed out, restricted or so severly backlogged from neglect that there are no other options. We have funneled people into sitting at the border, where they either get impatient or face safety concerns, and try to cross a river or desert, jump into the trunk of someones car or pay coyotes.
The logical explaination seems to craft a better system, than to place blame on the outliers of a system that doesn't work, because as the processes continue to deteriorate there are only going to be more and more outliers.
Congress could craft legislative remedies, to put people is smaller quicker lines, expand visa catagories and visa caps, and also restrictions and limitations. But if you are only doing restrictions and limitations (ex. close the border), you are not actually engaging with the systems and processes creating the issue to begin with.
Congress taking no action on immigration in over 20 years makes any of their actual policy objections seems less rational and more ideological or just straight up racial. It keeps immigration as an issue to get election on and not actually a problem to try to solve.
Interested in your thoughts too. I may just be in the policy mud, of too nuanced to be useful, over here.
This is really compelling to me! One of the reasons why I raised this topic was that I have a sense that (in public policy) everybody from the Democratic Party on through the left has internalized immigration as a defensive issue, for understandable reasons. "Conservatives are attacking immigrants, so it's our job to defend them." And that's right! But it means that we're also stuck implicitly defending aspects of the system that are not worth defending (like there not being enough resources to literally process people). So I do think part of this is being willing, as you put it really well, to go on the offensive more... "if you care so much about crowds at the border, why are you shutting down the processes that could help alleviate those lines?'
This is very helpful discussion/framing-- thank you! I was thinking about the ways the immigration system doesn't work in the context of Garrett's question a few weeks ago about examples of “how wonderful government services can be.” (The implication being that we know how terrible government services can be.) Much of the brokenness of the system (as I experience it) is not necessarily ideological, but just the result of lack of funds, bureaucracy, outdated rules, poor technology, poor communication, etc. But because “immigration” has been used as a wedge issue, discussions about fixing the system are framed, as you say, around how we feel about immigrants, and the conversation gets stuck there. Really, though, it’s part of a conversation about ways our government administrations are failing to, well, administer. And we all deserve better. Unfortunately, I don’t know if this is a more or less hopeful take. It seems like you could get a lot of people on board with “systems need to be easier to navigate,” but it’s a fine line before you are in the realm of bashing “government,” another ideological muddle.
It's something I thin about a ton, though, Lisa-- for those of us on the left, we should be way wonkier about (and hold even higher standards) for what would actually improve government on the pure logistics/buereacracy/back end/front end customer service experience. And you're right, it's hard to talk about this publicly without potentially accidentally veering into government bashing, but I think it's so crucial. The other day at the post office, I could tell that the clerks were particularly frustrated (and that was playing out in their customer service, which of course meant that I could feel myself getting frustrated with them) and I started wondering things like "huh, I wonder what about the current USPS computer systems work well or poorly for them?" "what rules/operating procedures would they change to make their jobs run smoother?" etc.
I don’t really know how to talk about it either— and I talk about immigration a lot in my household; my beloved immigrated from Brazil, and has had a long dicey and precarious 20 years till becoming a citizen two years ago. I’ve learned so much from her and her family, most of whom are in the US, and who have widely varied legal statuses. One of my learnings is that anyone navigating the systems basically has a PHd in legal studies and government systems.
It does strike me that we have a language problem. The southern border is a refugee and humanitarian crisis… calling it an immigration issue at all sometimes seems entirely missing the point… so I do wonder if using different, more specific language that allows for more nuance to all the very many forms and pathways of immigrations is one key.
Can only imagine how much your partner has had to navigate, Kate.
And yes! A language issue! How wild and cruel is it that we even talk about having an "immigration crisis!" From the jump, the assumption is that human beings are a problem to be solved for.
So I ran this query by Kha (my boo) this evening...and she first said "I don't really know how to talk about it either", but then she (of course) had a lot to say, and one thing she pointed out that I hadn't really thought about: the issue of the US refusing to deal with the situation of the people who have lived here for a long time and don't have a legal status, or have a permanent limbo status like DACA. Their status jams up the system, since they can't sponsor or help with any of the legal pathways available....if we dealt with the huge number of people already living here, that would potentially shift the number of folks coming through the border via land, since they'd have viable other pathways. (and obviously so-called chain migration is a republican boogeyperson, but...)
Please thank Kia for this! I think this is a great example of taking a policy step that I do agree with but that I've often heard articulated, but from a distanced, technocratic perspective ("we have to reduce the backlog," which at worst is expressed as an "in order to not incentivize migrants to come, claim asylum and stay indefinitely"). I'm imagining the same policy, but explained from the perspective of immigrant families who are actually stuck in the system!
Totally-- and I think part of that explanation is just the number of folks that are like "if you only gave us access, we have so many resources to help and care for people!" But as a shadow population, the options are really limited.
I share the prevailing view that we should provide adequate social services (ie more) to migrants coming here to escape persecution and other life circumstances that would compel many of us to similarly risk our lives for the ability to live safely, work and provide for ourselves and our families. I listened to a podcast recently that explained that our immigration policy woes are driven in part by the fact that immigration falls under the purview of something like, 11 different federal agencies. We can't even figure out solutions for major issues overseen by ONE federal agency.
I cannot, however, understand why our government cannot cough up the money to hire more immigration judges to tackle the backlog of some 3 million applications. I remember reading somewhere that we're holding up gazillions of dollars that would otherwise be contributing to the US economy if we got more of the properly filed applications (that have followed all the correct channels set up by our government to handle this type of thing -- many of which are close to the end of the process for completion). Could the judicial branch alone streamline this process where more of this stuff could avoid attorneys and be approved by lower-level people administrators? Is that a cost thing, or a *we have to get the entire dysfuncational Congress* to vote in favor of it thing? (Different way of saying it: what things can each dept do without Congressional approval to improve this mess?)
Also, what to do on the flip side. What can we do to stem the tide of migrants coming here, and what do we owe them/their countries, and what is the US' responsibility to make their lives safe through wielding our financial, political or diplomatic power to thwart or limit regimes that are driving folks out of their country and into ours? The problem is, all of those political regimes and cartels and other powerful forces are so entrenched and corrupt that ANY money the US sends to them will not go to the purpose we hope it will. It will only serve to embolden the rich and powerful. Would political embargos even work? Interventions we've tried in the Middle East should also show that the US alone cannot fundamentally change entrenched regimes, and certainly not with one-time interventions.
That's where I'm at a loss. Would love to hear scholars or anyone else with expertise in this area weigh in.
This made me think so much about all the puzzle pieces I would love to learn more about-- like what has been the actual political blowback/hold up on hiring more judges specifically. It's also making me realize how little I pay attention to the current status of Venezuelan and Nicaraguan and Salvadoran politics to have a good opinion as to which policies (both domestic there and interntionally) would go the farthest to help improve folks' lives.
Here's a contribution from a reader who wanted me to share their thoughts (which they emailed me) anonymously:
"Thinking about how do we know where we are going if we don't know where we came from? Finding our personal immigration story, not the generic condensed version is key to understanding what we came from and how we got where we are. Along the path of finding our ancestors we will also find the untold history of the United States. We've forgotten our individual threads and the part they play in the fabric of us. It's always a story of immigrants. And it's also the story of community that helps us survive and thrive. How can we understand where we are going if we don't know where we came from?"
I live in New York City, one of the places with the most migrants. I think of the migrants as people who in the short run require a lot of services, but in the longer run will be a great addition to my city. They have generally had to endure a lot to get here and that speaks well for their perseverance and their ambition. In time, they and their children will add to the life of the city significantly in both economic and cultural terms.
This is an anecdote. My family supports a public middle school in Washington Heights that has had its share of new students who are migrants. We recently heard from the senior administrators of the school about one new student from Mexico, an orphan, who made it here by himself to meet up with his uncles and grandfather. They live in a "double-up," meaning one room for two families.
This boy is off the charts smart. He wants to be an immigration lawyer. I wouldn't bet against him being able to do whatever he sets his mind to.
Also, NYC gets additional funds from the state for every new student so the migrants help the school budget.
In America we have a declining birthrate. We need immigrants. We've always needed immigrants. Almost all of us ARE immigrants/ descended from immigrants.
We should be worried when people like the boy I described DON"T want to come here.
I love this perspective and thank you for naming it. Are their NYC politicians who have been strong voices for this perspective-- from afar, it's been depressing to primarily read headline after headline about Eric Adams' rhetoric on the matter.
Not that I've seen.
I think everyone's focused on the immediate drain and not thinking about the longer term. To be fair, the immediate cost is sizable so it does present a near-term financial issue. The money has to come from somewhere. But I wish it could be addressed as a financial issue of how do we pay for this, without the anti-migrant spin.
It is heartening to see a lot of grass roots help for the migrants with donations of food and clothing. So there are definitely people who feel as I do.
The additional revenues for the school system is something I learned about recently, but that doesn't get much airtime.
I work in public higher education at a community college, which is, at least here in the Midwest, where one finds the most diverse population, and I enjoy that aspect of it tremendously. Living in Iowa (not a place that's well known for it's diversity) but you wouldn't know that if you walked up and down my halls or sat in one of my classes.
It burns me that my state supports students at private colleges more per capita than they do at my public college. Education to me is such a key part of how we can equalize the playing field in the face of socioeconomic equality, and we can move us forward as a civilization and a society.
I think about this quote from Stephen Jay Gould here and there, and I think it fits to this situation.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
Obviously, everybody's experience is different, but have you learned anything interesting from your immigrant students' reflections on Iowa? In what ways (and in what spaces) they've feel welcomed? In what ways they haven't?
I have had students that are extremely appreciative of the access to education, and others that were resentful that previous education that they had in their country would not transfer over. Some love the opportunity to learn, others frustrated at expectations that come with higher ed in the US (online homework via computer for example).
One student in particular did not enjoy the food. "It's too sweet, they put sugar in everything here."
I've worked pretty closely with students who identify as minorities due to an NSF grant, and the worst lesson I've had to deliver a student who came from a different country is how racism can present itself in public settings. This was before George Floyd, but I remember talking about potential issues with police and being believed by other students or faculty.
Thanks for sharing these different student reactions, Ted. This is what I have seen too, and that's what is so frustrating to me when people don't realize that migrants all have their own stories. And there are also little ways in which schools can be more welcoming. I was working with a school in Boston with a huge Vietnamese immigrant population, and they wondered why parents weren't more involved in their kids' academic lives. When I asked if they ever held a welcome meeting for those families outside of the HUGE open house, they said no. When I asked if they ever considered the working hours of immigrant and working class families, they said no. Welcoming families isn't just a vibe, it's an action, and often schools aren't doing enough.
"welcoming families isn't just a vibe, it's an action" ooooof that hit me!!
Me too!
I really appreciate your bringing in the community college angle— I’m curious if it’s your experience that a sizeable number of community college students are immigrants enrolling as a way to maintain status.
This was how my partner (who came to the US from Brazil 20 yrs ago) figured out staying for quite a few years early on; she’s talked about many of her fellow students being in the same boat. She had to pay entirely out of pocket, went to the cheapest school in the Philly area, and while she doesn’t speak very highly of having to go through all that, does speak about many of her professors and how remarkably kind, supportive, and understanding of her and others tenuous situations (financially, legally…)
This was more common prior to 2017. The election that fall started a shift away from the number of students who had a student visa from coming to the college. The number of students I had coming from Asia (mostly China) fell off a cliff. Most of my student immigrants are from Africa. Sudan has not been a stable place, and a lot of my students are from there.
That makes a lot of sense. (This was like 15-20 years ago I’m talking about)
Hoo boy. Can of worms on a Thursday, huh? I have no answers, just anecdotes. Caveat: my family migrated here in 1983 from Vietnam. We were lucky because my aunt married a white American soldier she met during the American War in Vietnam, and he sponsored us legally to come to the United States. And I say "lucky" because immigration policy back then was that you had to choose one family to sponsor, and patriarchy meant that my aunt sponsored by father since he was the oldest in her family. He was the oldest of 11, and all of his nine siblings remained behind in Vietnam until we could start the arduous process of becoming American citizens and then sponsoring them, one by one. And I say "lucky" because we did not have a deadly or arduous crossing by boat like so many other Vietnamese refugees.
Because this is my story, and I was a career teacher, I have told this stories in many classrooms over the years. When non-immigrant teachers were teaching about The American War, or immigration, they called on me to come to class and teach. I didn't mind doing that because at least I was telling a true story, which is more than I can say than the history textbooks that I grew up learning from.
So I guess my suggestion is to ask people besides white men to talk and make decisions about migration and immigration. The topic is so complicated and nuanced. We all know that, so why are the same people who have actually not experienced what they want to make life-changing decisions about the ones talking?
Once, I was on my way to a classroom to do my whole immigration story, and a white colleague stopped me. She asked me what I was doing, and I told her, and she said, "well, we're all immigrants aren't we?" Um, actually no. You are from Connecticut. The presumption is preposterous and dangerous. This story sticks with me because I feel like migration discussions sound like that white lady. We are presuming lots of things about different people and situations. Not all immigrants or migrants are the same. Let's start there.
Listen, just a chill Thursday conversation! And I do think that this is really, really wise, and puts so much better why I woke up this morning really struggling (in particular after reading that Times article). We keep going back to the well of starting the immigration conversation as a "problem" that must be managed or solved by the government, which of course is almost entirely made up of individuals without direct first or second generation immigration experience. And so we're not even starting from the experience and perspective of migrants.
Also, I love so much that you've stepped into the breach of misunderstanding and biased/wrong history in the schools you've worked... has that ever gotten exhausting?
From now on, this should be the answer to literally every political question.
So I guess my suggestion is to ask people besides white men to talk and make decisions about _____________.
The topic is so complicated and nuanced. We all know that, so why are the same people who have actually not experienced what they want to make life-changing decisions about the ones talking?
Oooh, I had not thought about the larger political landscape, and I like how you did this. That IS what I want, and I didn't even know it even as I wrote it. Thanks for helping me see that!
One day we will make comething great together - I can feel it in my bones. :)
Sooo chill.
To answer your question: yes, it definitely can be exhausting being the Representative of Immigration (especially in entitled private schools), but you know what? The students always make it worth it. This is my teacher bias, I know. But I’m not even talking about only wide-eyed young kids; the cynical older ones come around too. I might be their closest contact to an immigration story they can ask questions of, and who will answer them. They are curious, and that openness gives me energy.
Amazing educator answer!!
Thanks for this discussion as I feel like I just don't know enough to even begin coming up with what policies I should support. I'm overwhelmed by the flood of rhetoric, most of which seems couched to make political points for this election cycle, not taking the long view or trying to alter the political landscape to prepare for any policy decision. I will definitely be reading all the comments!
As for the consequences of what the US did to destabilize this hemisphere, I don't think most Americans know the historical record. Regardless, are they willing for the US to take any responsibility for those actions? If not, is this linked up with "just get over it already, don't make me feel guilty for a past I can't control?" How much of it is compassion fatigue, exacerbated by the homeless crisis here and so much suffering from war and famine? How much is driven by explicit and implicit biases about skin color, ethnicity, and not speaking English? I don't know. I don't know so much right now.
I think that there's a real power in the kind of questions you asked: "why is it hard to care?" "what about immigrants, especially from certain parts of the world, is particularly scary?" "what is your actual experience with immigrants?"
We learned over the past few years, that to migrate to Portugal, you have to already have a job (there waiting or a remote job), insurance that has at least $31,500 worth of coverage for the year, and you have to submit financial records showing that you will not be a burden on the state.
I mention this because I think it's interesting that Portugal is considered very close to a socialist country, in my understanding. Of course they do have refugee policies that are different than this, although I'm not sure what they are.
Which, to me, is all evidence that the issue is f*ing multi-layered everywhere.
My experience with Portugal (my Brazilian partner and I spend a lot of time there- a few months every year) is that yes, they have had a socialist government for the past few terms, and a lot of their policies are pretty good for taking care of people....but, much like the US experience of immigrants, it very much depends on who you are/class and color of your skin.
The "digital nomad" and golden ticket visa situations were designed for certain types of immigrants to bring their outside incomes and wealth into a relatively poor country. How they treat most Brazilians and other people from former colonies is a very very different matter. My partner has to endure all sorts of harassment every single time she's entered and exited (and she's viewed as being in a "higher class" by living in the US/fluency in English). It's lessened dramatically in the past couple years since she receive her US citizenship and travels there on a US passport, but even this past November, the passport control woman hassled her over whether she had enough money to be there for a month (she's a senior level creative at a large advertising agency, so, uh, yeah she does!).
Interestingly, there's been a huge movement of protests about those "fancy" visas, and the government has been rolling back the programs over the past year or two because they're seen as contributing to extremely high housing costs. Lisbon is one of the most expensive cities in Europe relative to what the median income is.
I appreciate both of these perspectives. I think both past and current discourse re: immigration throughout Europe are both really troubling/fascinating because they are revealing that the welfare states that a lot of countries rightfully pride themselves on were, more often than not, built on an assumption of continued exclusion (in particular exclusion of Black and Brown people from former colonized states).
The answer, of course, isn't "the entire idea of having generous welfare states is the problem," but "how do we transition from being places built to be welcoming to some to places that are welcoming to all?"
Hahaha I'm also spamming my own comments section, but the "digital nomad" experience and its impact on gentrification is an extremely under discussed aspect of immigration rhetoric. There's so much focus, for example, on assumed narratives of what poor migrants either from Mexico or who came through Mexico are doing "to" the United States, but far less focus on the ways that neighborhoods throughout Mexico City are becoming unaffordable in part because of U.S. digital expats who are welcomed with open arms.
I appreciate DR’s excellent comment. When we begin exporting hope and opportunity- rather than War and Dominance, we may begin to see the Benefits of Loving and Supporting the Opportunities of Others- Our “Not Me - Not My Responsibility “ isms- oppress Our People and Others- We are increasingly learning that: take your pick> women’s, girls’, Bipoc, Queer, Trans etc Rights DON’T Matter- be an Ally- Support Ourselves- through supporting “The Others”- We All Matter!
I couldn't agree more, and as always so well put George. I think the tricky thing is how to help encourage more of our fellow folks in the U.S. to immediately show the same welcome that David articulated so well up above for the folks who are arriving right now (as a result of our exporting war and dominance for so long), long before we get to see the different world that could be true from exporting hope and opportunity. I do think a big part of it lies in what you noted though-- making sure we stay loud and proud of supporting everybody, both migrants and everybody who is too often under threat. The less we're zero sum the better.
I saw Origin last Friday and can’t help but think how much of this is tied up in Caste. We’ve stratified so much of society into who is at the top, how their meant to act, and what they’re meant to look like that we focus on the “crisis” of brown, poor people at the southern border and ignore the fact that more people on the terror watch list come over the northern border. I’m not sure this helps the conversation at all. It’s just where my thinking is.
On the other hand, one thing that gives me hope is the Chicago Refugee Community Connection group I’ve joined on Facebook. It’s a group of mostly women who act as sponsors for registered refugee families--getting them acquainted with idiosyncrasies and necessities of living in the U.S., as well as helping them acquire housing and furniture and jobs. The amount this group does with free stores and Christmas presents and crowdsourcing is inspiring. And it has spawned a second group meant for welcoming new immigrants from South & Central America who are staying at police stations and in shelters.
As a former teacher of refugees in Chicago, I love that Facebook group you mentioned, and it makes me even happier to find that they are expanding their gaze to the asylum seekers who are currently stuck at shelters and police stations right now. I think that "being pro immigrant" is such an abstraction for so many, that there is value in people learning from the story of U.S. citizens who are trying to make their lives more interconnected with immigrants.
I work as an immigration paralegal, although we do business and family immigration so I have almost no experience with the "border crisis" and asylum issues that seem to be what most people think of when the topic of "immigration" is raised. Even in the privileged realm of employment-based immigration, however, our systems are fully broken. I think that's my first thought-- it's that the headlines reduce immigration to a "border issue" when it actually covers a huge swath of scenarios, and those who are at the more privileged end of it are often shocked to find that it's restrictive across the board. A U.S. citizen obtaining a green card for a spouse, for instance-- it's a gauntlet, even if you are rich and marrying, say, a Canadian. Filing fees are high (a new rule just passed making them even higher!) and processing times completely unpredictable but usually very long. Oh, and if you make a mistake it can be catastrophic. I don't really know what to DO with this information, in the context of the public discussion about immigration, but I still wish people knew that the process is a nightmare, full stop, not just punitive for those who are "breaking the rules."
My other thought is idealistic and harder to articulate, but it has to do with how immigration policies are full of assumptions about the relative value of persons. I reject the notion that any person is more valuable than another, but our immigration policies are completely predicated on notions of value, not just in terms of “desirable” vs. “undesirable” immigrants, but even just within employment-based immigration, the options are very dependent on type of job and credentials held. I don’t think our issues with racism etc. are even being realistically addressed if we’re still accepting, on any level, that some people are better/more desirable (or even, euphemistically, “better for the economy” or “contribute more to society”) than others. But it’s hard to imagine any immigration system that isn’t rooted in “merit based” judgments. Then I end up questioning the point of the whole endeavor. And that’s just in the abstract—of course we’re living in a complicated set of existing circumstances and systems, and I end up feeling too idealistic to comment, even while having a lot more practical knowledge than many highly opinionated people.
I completely share your views/values on the worth of all people, but, I confess, I'd trade any 10 MAGAs for just one of the women who participated in the early 90s market women's movement in Togo, or any of dozens more similar movements before and since.
All of this is so helpful (really appreciate the insight about all the ways the system is broken), but your second paragraph really cuts to the core of why it's hard for me to articulate a practical aspiration for the system-- short of no borders/no citizenship at all, any system we end up with is going to end up assigning relative merit and value to people (and you articulated so well while that just feels contrary to my values).
I'm an old white guy with all the privileges. Folks should feel free to stop reading right now.
I litigated some asylum cases in the 90s; I won very nearly every case, which is 0% attributable to my skill as a lawyer, and 100% to the non-profit I was working with that vetted cases. I have no idea how many they turned away, but no doubt whatsoever that there are plenty of legit claims from people coming across the border. I see no reason at all why the feds should not be fully funding this branch of the thing: more judges, clerks, lawyers, courtrooms. I'm not looking for drumhead justice here -- I think we really can throw money at this aspect of the issue and make real progress in getting asylees out of limbo and into our society.
(Just as an aside, my asylum cases were capital cases: the clients had all had family members beaten, some to death, as a result of their political activities, and would be themselves killed if we lost. It was a privilege just to meet people who'd stood up to dictators [mostly in Africa] let alone give them the chance to enrich and improve our society.)
More generally, IMO we have space in our society for the kinds of people who are taking extraordinary steps to get here, and ought to be welcoming way more immigrants than we are. I'm not going to do the calculations, but I'd not be surprised if corporate greed at the top was a bigger factor in depressing wages in the lower income bands than immigration.
Speaking of asylum funding . . . they just issued a final rule on Tuesday adding a $600 "Asylum Program Fee" to filings for employment visas. I'm not sure about the politics of this one, but it sure feels like it will increase negative feelings toward the asylum program, even/especially within a demographic that might otherwise be interested in immigration reform.
I hadn't heard this news!
Absolutely agree, Charley. And I do think sharing the stories of asylum seekers, as you shared here, are an important part of the case we have to make. Yes, it's bad to have an underfunded system and a backlog for a ton of reasons, but one of them is that asylum seekers have often braved the worst, and centering their stories matters.
*rolls up sleeves and rubs hands together*
Immigration lawyer chiming in. This prompt is... in my lane.
Another substacker I follow, who also happens to be an immigration researcher wrote a post that immigration dialog has moved out of the realm of fact based, routine, paper filing, processing of how people get in and out and has moved into a specifically wedge political issue to be used for party ideology, and that framing resonated with me.
There is so much misinformation about the border and how immigration actually works and often the dialog get pushed into box of how do we "feel" about people immigrating and whether they have a right or a reason to immigrate, when really we should actually have anything to say about that at all. It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately and that there are options for people to migrate saftely and efficiently (there is a whole set of law and treaties for this). Right now we don't have a functional safe system, since we underfunded the immigration processing agencies, dredged their staff in the *rump administration, and reduced ways for people to migrate or even just visit the U.S. We've manufactured our our border crisis, and more and more people don't have any other options than to just show up and "get in the line".
I wonder if we started talking more about what makes an immigration system functional and why can't our elected pull that off, if it would take the focus off folks just trying to use the freedom to move and more on the people who won't let them.
Very, very happy to clear the floor for an immigration lawyer in our community :). This is really helpful for me to read. I think the line about how "It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately..." No need to reply to this, but how would you respond though to the conservative counterpoint "well, we can get on board with that, but we're still concerned with people coming here surreptitiously, because they're [insert one: jumping the line, not participating in the process, etc.]." I have some initial thoughts there, but would love your more informed perspective if you're up for it.
A couple thoughts, if the concern is people not fitting into the process, or not participating in the processes, why are conservative legislators (or all of them right now actually) so adament about shutting the processes down? Shouldn't they want to clean it up? Processing at the border is one big line. People are sitting in that line, becasue all the other shorter, quicker lines are closed out, restricted or so severly backlogged from neglect that there are no other options. We have funneled people into sitting at the border, where they either get impatient or face safety concerns, and try to cross a river or desert, jump into the trunk of someones car or pay coyotes.
The logical explaination seems to craft a better system, than to place blame on the outliers of a system that doesn't work, because as the processes continue to deteriorate there are only going to be more and more outliers.
Congress could craft legislative remedies, to put people is smaller quicker lines, expand visa catagories and visa caps, and also restrictions and limitations. But if you are only doing restrictions and limitations (ex. close the border), you are not actually engaging with the systems and processes creating the issue to begin with.
Congress taking no action on immigration in over 20 years makes any of their actual policy objections seems less rational and more ideological or just straight up racial. It keeps immigration as an issue to get election on and not actually a problem to try to solve.
Interested in your thoughts too. I may just be in the policy mud, of too nuanced to be useful, over here.
This is really compelling to me! One of the reasons why I raised this topic was that I have a sense that (in public policy) everybody from the Democratic Party on through the left has internalized immigration as a defensive issue, for understandable reasons. "Conservatives are attacking immigrants, so it's our job to defend them." And that's right! But it means that we're also stuck implicitly defending aspects of the system that are not worth defending (like there not being enough resources to literally process people). So I do think part of this is being willing, as you put it really well, to go on the offensive more... "if you care so much about crowds at the border, why are you shutting down the processes that could help alleviate those lines?'
This is very helpful discussion/framing-- thank you! I was thinking about the ways the immigration system doesn't work in the context of Garrett's question a few weeks ago about examples of “how wonderful government services can be.” (The implication being that we know how terrible government services can be.) Much of the brokenness of the system (as I experience it) is not necessarily ideological, but just the result of lack of funds, bureaucracy, outdated rules, poor technology, poor communication, etc. But because “immigration” has been used as a wedge issue, discussions about fixing the system are framed, as you say, around how we feel about immigrants, and the conversation gets stuck there. Really, though, it’s part of a conversation about ways our government administrations are failing to, well, administer. And we all deserve better. Unfortunately, I don’t know if this is a more or less hopeful take. It seems like you could get a lot of people on board with “systems need to be easier to navigate,” but it’s a fine line before you are in the realm of bashing “government,” another ideological muddle.
It's something I thin about a ton, though, Lisa-- for those of us on the left, we should be way wonkier about (and hold even higher standards) for what would actually improve government on the pure logistics/buereacracy/back end/front end customer service experience. And you're right, it's hard to talk about this publicly without potentially accidentally veering into government bashing, but I think it's so crucial. The other day at the post office, I could tell that the clerks were particularly frustrated (and that was playing out in their customer service, which of course meant that I could feel myself getting frustrated with them) and I started wondering things like "huh, I wonder what about the current USPS computer systems work well or poorly for them?" "what rules/operating procedures would they change to make their jobs run smoother?" etc.
I don’t really know how to talk about it either— and I talk about immigration a lot in my household; my beloved immigrated from Brazil, and has had a long dicey and precarious 20 years till becoming a citizen two years ago. I’ve learned so much from her and her family, most of whom are in the US, and who have widely varied legal statuses. One of my learnings is that anyone navigating the systems basically has a PHd in legal studies and government systems.
It does strike me that we have a language problem. The southern border is a refugee and humanitarian crisis… calling it an immigration issue at all sometimes seems entirely missing the point… so I do wonder if using different, more specific language that allows for more nuance to all the very many forms and pathways of immigrations is one key.
Can only imagine how much your partner has had to navigate, Kate.
And yes! A language issue! How wild and cruel is it that we even talk about having an "immigration crisis!" From the jump, the assumption is that human beings are a problem to be solved for.
So I ran this query by Kha (my boo) this evening...and she first said "I don't really know how to talk about it either", but then she (of course) had a lot to say, and one thing she pointed out that I hadn't really thought about: the issue of the US refusing to deal with the situation of the people who have lived here for a long time and don't have a legal status, or have a permanent limbo status like DACA. Their status jams up the system, since they can't sponsor or help with any of the legal pathways available....if we dealt with the huge number of people already living here, that would potentially shift the number of folks coming through the border via land, since they'd have viable other pathways. (and obviously so-called chain migration is a republican boogeyperson, but...)
Please thank Kia for this! I think this is a great example of taking a policy step that I do agree with but that I've often heard articulated, but from a distanced, technocratic perspective ("we have to reduce the backlog," which at worst is expressed as an "in order to not incentivize migrants to come, claim asylum and stay indefinitely"). I'm imagining the same policy, but explained from the perspective of immigrant families who are actually stuck in the system!
Totally-- and I think part of that explanation is just the number of folks that are like "if you only gave us access, we have so many resources to help and care for people!" But as a shadow population, the options are really limited.
*Kha
[autocorrect mistake!]
I share the prevailing view that we should provide adequate social services (ie more) to migrants coming here to escape persecution and other life circumstances that would compel many of us to similarly risk our lives for the ability to live safely, work and provide for ourselves and our families. I listened to a podcast recently that explained that our immigration policy woes are driven in part by the fact that immigration falls under the purview of something like, 11 different federal agencies. We can't even figure out solutions for major issues overseen by ONE federal agency.
I cannot, however, understand why our government cannot cough up the money to hire more immigration judges to tackle the backlog of some 3 million applications. I remember reading somewhere that we're holding up gazillions of dollars that would otherwise be contributing to the US economy if we got more of the properly filed applications (that have followed all the correct channels set up by our government to handle this type of thing -- many of which are close to the end of the process for completion). Could the judicial branch alone streamline this process where more of this stuff could avoid attorneys and be approved by lower-level people administrators? Is that a cost thing, or a *we have to get the entire dysfuncational Congress* to vote in favor of it thing? (Different way of saying it: what things can each dept do without Congressional approval to improve this mess?)
Also, what to do on the flip side. What can we do to stem the tide of migrants coming here, and what do we owe them/their countries, and what is the US' responsibility to make their lives safe through wielding our financial, political or diplomatic power to thwart or limit regimes that are driving folks out of their country and into ours? The problem is, all of those political regimes and cartels and other powerful forces are so entrenched and corrupt that ANY money the US sends to them will not go to the purpose we hope it will. It will only serve to embolden the rich and powerful. Would political embargos even work? Interventions we've tried in the Middle East should also show that the US alone cannot fundamentally change entrenched regimes, and certainly not with one-time interventions.
That's where I'm at a loss. Would love to hear scholars or anyone else with expertise in this area weigh in.
This made me think so much about all the puzzle pieces I would love to learn more about-- like what has been the actual political blowback/hold up on hiring more judges specifically. It's also making me realize how little I pay attention to the current status of Venezuelan and Nicaraguan and Salvadoran politics to have a good opinion as to which policies (both domestic there and interntionally) would go the farthest to help improve folks' lives.