Immigration and all that....

As the election season (which is beginning to feel more like the election decade) continues, it seems to me that there has been a cacophony of cymbal banging on the issue of immigration. This has, regrettably, been brought to the forefront by the now-admitted lie told repeatedly by the Republican nominee for Vice President: Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are capturing and then eating the pet dogs and cats of their fellow residents. The GOP candidate for Vice President has recently also defended his lie by saying that it was the only way to make the main stream media news outlets and the cable news outlets talk about immigration. However, anyone who has been watching, listening, or reading about this eating-people’s-pets issue could most likely attest to the fact that the result has not been an earnest discussion on how the government might address the issue of immigration. Indeed, as of this writing, the result has so far been numerous bomb threats made to schools, the arrival of the Proud Boys into Springfield (presumably to defend the local dogs and cats), massive numbers of posts on X, hours of nonsensical coverage by news outlets, alleged on-the-scene photographs of suspicious-looking individuals carrying dead geese that turn out to be roadkill being removed, etc. As far as I know what hasn’t happened is anything approaching a rational discussion on the issue of immigration, illegal or otherwise.

As with other issues in this election, I sought out information on the topic. It’s there. One can find it. But, let’s face it, if you are as exhausted as I am by the election, it seems an insurmountable task to locate where each party stands on the issue of immigration.

The GOP’s position begins with the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security. The immigration policies found therein would be rolled into a Border and Immigration Agency, with rules to be established by the incoming administration. Since it would be a new agency, it would be staffed by new people, allowing the termination of previous employees who might have spoken out against the various bans on asylum seekers. Since the Supreme Court has given the Executive Branch broad discretion regarding immigration, this would allow the President to expand what is called “an expedited removal” (speedy deportation) of individuals across the entire country, not just at the border. Legal immigration would be curtailed through the reduction and/or elimination of T and U visas, which are issued to victims of sex trafficking and victims of other crimes who otherwise help the police investigate and arrest perpetrators of those crimes. People with protected status and temporary protected status (including Ukrainians, Afghans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians) could have their status rescinded. Anyone whose immigration application is rejected would be required to leave the US immediately, thus eliminating the possibility for appealing the decision. The cost of all applications would increase; the “premium” processing track would allow people to pay more to skip the line. Congress would be asked to rescind the agreement that requires unaccompanied minors to be held in the least restrictive setting. Expulsions during “mass migrations” would not be subject to the law preventing capricious rule-making, which means that in the case of “mass migrations” the rules would be whatever the President decided the rules would be. Members of the military would be deployed to the border to continue the building of the wall between the US and Mexico.

While, admittedly, the broken immigration system needs to be overhauled, Congress did manage—during the last 3+ years—to design an overhaul that both the GOP and the Democrats worked on together and approved together. However, it was not passed by Congress because the GOP candidate for President asked the GOP members of Congress to bury it so that he could make it an issue in his campaign. The GOP members of Congress did so.

The Democrats are approaching the immigration problem in a manner that some would call stars-in-the-eyes liberal; others would call reasonable and humane; and others would call a starting place open for compromise. The Democrats first point out that there are a number of past and current policies that are counter to the underlying principles which have defined the US since its establishment as a country: forcibly separating families; caging children; deporting veterans; raiding workplaces; denying COVID-19 testing based on immigration status; banning people from traveling to the US based on religious faith or country of origin; turning away refugees and asylum seekers fleeing violence and persecution. The Democrats’ position is that immigrants are essential to the US economy since they are part of the process of growing our food, caring for our loved ones, serving in the military, and providing health care services.

The Democrats’ plan would rescind the previous administration’s “National Emergency” declaration which siphoned funds away from men and women in uniform in order to build a wall along the US border; their plan would terminate discriminatory travel and immigration bans that disproportionately impacted Muslim, Arab, and African people; it would reverse policies that prevent LGBTQ+ individuals from being eligible to apply for asylum; it would end the prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and end restrictions that force them to apply from “safe third countries.” The Democrats’ plan would prioritize family reunification for children still separated from their families; it would restore the reunification programs ended by the previous administration; it would support legislation that treats spouses and children of green card holders as immediate relatives so as to end their separations; it would reform the system to speed up family-based visas; it would expand the annual cap for victims of human trafficking, sex trafficking, violence against women and children; it would ensure that same sex couples and their children receive equal treatment in the immigration process; it would make sure there is diversity in the immigration process; it would end for-profit detention centers; it would provide access to competent interpreters for people who do not speak English; it would provide alternatives to detention for people with special vulnerabilities (physical disability, the elderly, pregnant women, nursing mothers, etc.); it would demand that the heads of immigration agencies be Senate-confirmed individuals and not appointees of the President; it would support the awarding of visas to employment-based immigration that addresses market needs; it would support funding for English classes, bilingual education, workforce development, and adult education.

I think we have to ask ourselves what’s important here. Some people say that what’s important is No More Immigrants No Matter What even though they know that we are all either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. I’m the descendant of Italian immigrants: both of my grandparents and several of my aunts and my uncles were born in Italy. I am, thus, depending on how you look at it, merely two generations or one generation from my relatives’ coming to this country for a better life. Indeed, in a country of immigrants, there is only one group that can claim to be native to this continent: the Native Americans who are the descendants of the people who’d been here for thousands of years when the first pilgrims arrived.

But…should we have more immigrants? Do they contribute anything? Aren’t they here to claim what is rightfully “ours”? Don’t they wish to eat and drink at the public trough? If I examine my own life, is there a single immigrant who is contributing anything to it? I think so. My primary physician is an immigrant from the Philippines; my dermatologist is an immigrant from Vietnam; my endodontist is an immigrant from Vietnam; my husband’s oncologist is an immigrant from India; my husband’s oncology radiologist is an immigrant from China. The couple who clean our house are immigrants from Mexico. The electrician who worked on our house is an immigrant from Lebanon. The refrigerator repairman is an immigrant from Ukraine. Have they taken from me anything that’s rightfully “mine”? Have they provided me anything?

Where I live there are immigrant festivals that one can attend throughout the year. I’ve been to Japanese festivals, Chinese festivals, Italian festivals, Indian festivals, Greek festivals, and Black festivals. I live in a multicultural city where I have met Ethiopians, Eritreans, Ugandans, Nigerians, Mexicans, Black Americans, South Africans, Indians, and people of mixed race. I call friends members of the LGBTQ+ communities. To be honest, where someone comes from is no big deal to me. Indeed, I moved to this city in the first place because I wanted to live in a multicultural environment. I consider mixing with other cultures as opportunities to learn something.

It's my belief—however naïve—that if we greeted other cultures with curiosity instead of with fear, we’d be so much richer for the experience. We’d buy different products (like handmade African baskets); we’d eat different meals (like the wonderful Ethiopian food or equally wonderful Korean food offered in a neighborhood near mine); we’d learn about customs unfamiliar to us; we’d meet more people. To me, this is what I want to embrace because I’ve found that people are essentially good if I keep my mind and my heart open to the possibilities they present for my growth.

I would agree that the immigration system needs to be overhauled. But I believe that there are ways to do it that serve everyone and not just the interests of a select few who dislike others “just because.”

Elizabeth George
Seattle, Washington
18 September 2024