I would definitely agree, the Trump administration has turned immigration courts into a joke. They don’t take it seriously as it should be taken. People have been getting murdered, kidnapped, or disappeared. Back then people wouldn’t care wether where you were from or what’s you race. Either way back then they still had salvation and racism but not as strong as nowadays. Now our world has turned into a racist, discriminated and toxic world. They took babies away from Central Americans mothers. Americans wouldn’t like that and they used to be against it. Back then before all this people weren’t so cold hearted they would help one another and treat each other equally
23
And what liberals like the writer always fail to understand is if you just open the floodgates and let everyone here America turns into a third world country overnight. That's the reality.
America is overcrowded as it is. Immigration needs to slow to a trickle. No more so-called asylum seekers. Only those who are educated and have jobs lined up and the means to support themselves.
If the writer hates law and order so much go try living in some third world country where that doesn't exist and see how it works out for her.
104
Ms. Nazario’s account of the atrocities committed by the 1976-1983 military government in Argentina is accurate, but there are omissions in her piece that are not insignificant.
-The 1955 coup was the one that ended the first government of Juan Domingo Perón, a Trump-like demagogue and populist who had generous immigration policies towards Nazi criminals, including Adolf Eichmann and Joseph Mengele, Ante Pavelić of the Ustasha, and many others.
- When Ms. Nazario’s father left Argentina in1959 the country was ruled by the democratically elected, liberal, slightly left of center, and fairly enlightened administration of Arturo Frondizi.
- When her family returned to Argentina in 1974 the country was again ruled by Perón, who died in office and was succeeded by his supremely ignorant vice-president wife. The right-wing terror squads who were embraced by the military government that came to power in 1976 (they knew a “good thing” when they saw one) were already operating in 1974, and targeting the same left-wing paramilitary organizations. In fact, the terror squads were a creation of Perón himself.
- Owning books such as Alice in Wonderland and works by Freud did not by itself get anybody in trouble (another popular title in this myth is The Little Prince).
Inventing trivialities, and omitting important facts, distorts the real tragedy brought upon the beautiful land of Argentina by Peronists, the military juntas and foreign-backed left wing guerrillas in equal measure.
31
Jared Kushner's Jewish ancestral family is German, not Polish.
5
The current political divide in the US is not new. I chose to flee when George W Bush opened the floodgates to right-wing christian zealots. He, too lost the popular vote, and was installed by the right-wing Supreme Court. It's been nearly 20 years, and the ensuing storm of right-wing, christianist propaganda was terrifying to many people. As a gay man, I spoke in hushed tones with others, including elderly Jews. We all felt deeply threatened. In 2004, I met an Australian man, and we fell in love. As Australia's immigration laws allowed him to sponsor my immigration, and after the re-election of Bush and his idiotic and nonsensical "war on terror," I left the US. I have never regretted it. The beginnings of Trumpism were clear to see, even then, and only got worse with each racist, fascist attack on America's first black president. Mike Pence, a rabid Christianist, is the vice president, ready to step in if 45's readily apparent ill health deteriorates further. I made the right choice.
57
Abuse what system? We don’t have a system to abuse. If you mean the welfare system where migrants are rolling in cash and food stamps, it doesn’t exist. Have you every applied for assistance? Do you have any idea the paperwork involved and exposure applying would entail? Migrants don’t apply for government services by the hoards. “Economic migrants”...what does that mean? Are they trying to come here to eat? What are “these” people taking from you that you and your tribe are so afraid of losing? Enough of being the victim while the President of this economically booming county is golfing away millions dollars. Get a grip, get a heart.
72
Sub_Headline: "...My family’s refugee story shows that we can have an immigration policy that is both sane and humane..."
I agree, x's 10,000%! Or...we can continue Trump's crime, against humanity!
29
Compelling piece!! Thank you!!
31
I would definitely agree, the Trump administration has turned immigration courts into a joke. They don’t take it seriously as it should be taken. People have been getting murdered, kidnapped, or disappeared. Back then people wouldn’t care wether where you from or what’s your race. Either way back then they still had slavation and racism but nowadays we have turned into a racist , descriminated and toxic world. They took babies away from Central American mothers. Americans wouldn’t like that and they used to be against it. Back then before all this people weren’t so cold hearted they helped anyone.
9
Maybe we can't help the whole World, but we can certainly help our neighbors in Central America. The Central American countries are small countries with low birth rates. They are not going to overwhelm us. The wall is insulting and just plain rude. (PS. I know that everyone in the US thinks Latins all have big families but it isn't true anymore. If you don't believe me about the low birth rates check out the CIA fact book on raw fertility rates in Latin American countries.)
24
The title question: 'What Part of Illegal Don't You Understand?'
Answer: The hate part.
35
What a powerful essay.
18
I immigrated to the US legally after completing all the necessary formalities & duly waiting in line. I am brown skinned with a distinct liberal bent & not a fan of the current POTUS. And I am well aware of the overstays of tourist & student visa holders, the parental abuse of “ anchor babies” clause, the abuse of “ family reunification” where folks who never made a contribution to the tax system successfully get economic & health benefits. The urgent need is to plug these loopholes & abuses, and strengthen the border to curtail all illegal immigration before any rational changes in the immigration policy are considered. The unrelenting pressure for more expansive & liberal immigration policy without fixing the misuse & violations in the current system is unfair & illogical. It will be counterproductive & result in benefiting the current occupant of the WH in the forthcoming election.
96
Black and white thinking has removed all semblance of common sense and justice from the illegal immigration debate. The left and their presidential candidates (as well as the crazy 4) have come out for completely open borders. The right indicates that it's never OK to immigrate illegally. The truth is that both sides and political parties don't want a solution they prefer a continual fight.
26
“You have to be taught to hate, ever since you were five or six or seven or eight...” - South Pacific, the Musical.
I appreciate my polychrome, polyglot family. And friends, colleagues, subordinates, and bosses. My life is much richer because of them.
20
Without quite repeating the propaganda of the right, the author supports it by giving the impression that it is a common liberal position to favor "open borders." Though you can find liberals who support this position, they are actually pretty rare. The more standard position is something similar to the authors suggestion and the bill in Congress that shes finds favor with. If The right rails against the US following our own laws and treaty obligations, falsely claiming that this is allowing "open borders."
35
I was with Ms. Nazario until she implied that liberals advocate "open borders." Liberals advocate no such thing. The term was first used by Donald Trump and his hardline immigration adviser Stephen Miller to slander liberals who disagree with the policies of treating refugees like criminals and and of separating children from parents--then losing track of the children and denying them education and medical care.
52
This country threw away its right to claim ANYthing is legal - or illegal. We have no SCOTUS, no legitimate Senate or President...so "illegal" simply ceased to exist.
19
A fair compromise would be that for every asylum applicant that we grant legal residence to three undocumented aliens need be re-integrated into their respective nations of origin. There must be a trade off.
25
Until recently, everyone who applied for asylum was kept in custody until an immigration judge could determine if they qualified. This way, everyone who was requesting asylum had no choice but to attend their immigration hearings, and those who were found not to qualify, could easily be deported. Then a district judge (as distinct from an immigration judge) ruled that minors could not be kept in custody for longer than 20 days. Obama tried to get around this ruling by building special housing for families where they could be detained until immigration judges ruled on their cases. But the district judge would not accept the specially-designed housing. Obama next decided that he could not detain parents while letting their children out so he let entire families go free to wait for their immigration hearings. The problem is that 44% percent do not show up for their immigration hearings. (See the Department of Justice 5/19 web page by the Executive Office for Immigration Review titled “Myths vs Facts about Immigration Proceedings".) The policy of just letting migrants go free in the country with the hope that they would attend their immigration hearing became known as “Catch & Release”. Word went out to everyone in Central America and beyond that anyone with a minor would be released into the U.S., if they requested asylum at the border. Once in the U.S., migrants could “go underground” by joining the large undocumented community, and wait for the next amnesty.
59
This is a captivating and heartbreaking story, filled with vivid images both painful and beautiful. It’s also painfully disingenuous. Equating European and Argentinian immigration with Mexican immigration is a gross non sequitur.
In California where I live numerous American citizens and immigrants have been raped, killed and tortured by those who also came illegally and never showed up for their hearings after being released into the general population. It’s the same nationwide. These poor individuals never show up in pieces like this. Nearly all Americans want and value immigrants (granted some don’t) but nearly all want immigration done in an organized legal way. Democrats don’t seem to care that people here illegally are forced to fly under the radar for fear of being taken advantage of while working for substandard wages. No matter what Democrats say that’s racism. Say what you like but Trump promised to fix immigration because no previous president wanted to. If immigration laws are draconian, then congress needs to change them in a way that protects Americans and immigrants. Let’s stop painting our country as something evil and recognize that it has done infinitely more for immigrants world wide than any other.
23
This is INSUFFERABLE. EVERY SINGLE YEAR, we naturalize 1,000,000 immigrants who come legally. Every SINGLE YEAR!!! But that is not enough for the open borders types. How many more do we need? We currently have the HIGHEST number of foreign born residents in the USA in our history. 15%. This affects the job prospects of our children, our housing, our schools. And still open borders types like this author want MORE. I do not. We need to reduce immigration, and take a time-out, and let the dust settle. We should STOP all immigration for 10 years.
65
I read an article in The Atlantic yesterday. It was about an Border Agent who was found unknowingly to be illegal himself.
Everyone both republican and democrat should read it. His story is heartbreaking.
A Secret at the Border
Feb 14, 2020 | 92 videos
Raul Rodriguez was proud to be a border agent. For nearly two decades, he had searched for people and drugs hidden in cargo before it entered the United States. In his years of service as a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, he’d initiated the deportations of thousands of people. His job gave him security and a sense of purpose.
One day, in 2018, that all came crashing down. Investigators came to Rodriguez’s office in McAllen, Texas, to tell him his career in immigration—and his military service before that—was based on a lie. His United States citizenship was fraudulent. He was an undocumented immigrant himself.
13
Thank you. I am ashamed of my country.
8
I recently spent a week in Nogales, AZ / MX where I witnessed the suffering of those waiting on the Mexican side homeless for months, children, pregnant women. Border patrol checkpoints in the dessert + "mass processing" of refugees in the Courts in Tucson. 3x/day, 75 individuals The judge called groups of approximately 10 up front, each one had their lawyer standing behind them. All of them treated the same: "Jose Maria Ramirez, Nogales, January 25. Do you plead guilty?" "Yes". "35 days prison"... (some much longer). No time for explanations. How many of these people have children, spouses, brothers and sisters in the US? How many have lived and worked here for decades? No time for any details. The "lucky" ones were the young Guatemalan men and a girl who didn't understand any Spanish and who were sent to a special holding facility where they will wait until an entire airplane of them will be sent to Guatemala. Many will not survive the first year after their forced return. After the 1hr proceeding (75 individuals!) the judge came to speak with us. He was very critical of the current system and told those of us in the audience: "You need to contact Congress! This is not working!"
4
Thank you for writing this article.
2
Most Americans want fairer immigration and refugee laws for all aliens. But the issue becomes harder to swallow when cities like Boston just passed a law that illegal aliens who are driving without a license, and stopped, cannot be arrested, but just given a summons for breaking the law To avoid deportation. This insane ruling allows Boston politicians, to put illegal aliens above the law, while American citizens would have their license suspended and/or or thrown into jail.
58
"Empathy [in America] has been stretched to its limits?" Hardly. Only in the context of an extremely adolescent, narcissistic and violent culture.
11
My read, in more than one book, says that an anti-Semitic Under Secretary of State denied the emmigration of those on the St. Louis, not FDR himself.
5
Here are 5 comments from a 3/8/11 PBS Newshour segment titled "In Guatemala, Family Planning Clashes with Religion, Tradition”.
'Stories about the dangers of birth control are often linked to religion, where family-planning methods such as monthly pills, tubal ligation, and IUDs have long been against church teachings.”
"We will follow God's will. We believe this is natural law. And we have heard too many stories about birth control, like injections and pills that cause cancer.”
"Here, populations are overwhelmingly Mayan and overwhelmingly religious. Women typically have eight, nine, 10 children.”
"Years ago, more children meant more hands to work the land. But generation after generation, farms are divided into smaller and smaller plots. There's less food to harvest. And with big families comes more mouths to feed. Nearly half the population of Guatemala suffers from chronic malnutrition.”
“ ...46 percent of children are stunted.” "Malnourished children have 12 points less of I.Q. than a normal child. We will have a great majority of the population with diminished mental capacities.”
In 1955, Guatemala had under 4 million people. Today is has well over 17 million.
The Guatemalan population has exceeded the country’s carrying capacity so Guatemalans are coming here … and continuing to have many children. They seem oblivious to the fact that our own water supply and other natural resources are being diminished
32
If history is any guide, opening our borders to floods of people from countries with the highest murder rates in the world isn't going to end well.
40
Food for Thought - I wonder if Donald Trump’’s grandfather who came from Bavaria Germany or his grandmother would have been allowed in the United States under his present immigration policy?
8
Man the title made me think this story would offer a real solution. Nope, just force us to accept 100,000s of asylum seekers for bogus reasons that the UN never covered like having a bad husband, make it legal to cross the border (how is that not open borders??), and let everyone go and just say I hope to see you at your hearing but if we dont it's all good enjoy (and BTW 9 in 10 asylum seekers do not show up for hearings. According to multiple sources it's closer to 1/2).
Maybe the acceptance rate is so low because the majority of asylum seekers are economic migrants. Maybe the reason Americans like me favor the rule of law is because for 30 years I've watched once good jobs like painter and drywaller or factory worker become $10/hr off the books no benefit jobs.
I personally believe in legal immigration. Large amounts of it. But I dont believe in expanding the asylum system to accept everyone and I dont believe in making it legal to cross into our country without permission.
Of course I'm just a dumb white racist to most liberals. No matter that I'm a transgender woman who went to MIT, as soon as you say anything outside of liberal dogma in today's society you get pilloried.
48
As a paralegal in a huge NY law firm, I sometimes had to assist attorney's working pro bono (it's a requirement) on immigration cases. After the first few, I strenuously avoided working on these cases. I saw first-hand how the lawyers encouraged the clients to exaggerate their tails of woe, with little to back up claims which, after a while, sounded very much alike. Lawyers prefer to win so they tried really hard to win these flimsy cases.
134
Our refugee policies were made to address the aftermath of WWII, not poverty and overpopulation in countries that have a long history of internal corruption and violence. These conditions are awful, I agree - but that's why people fight for democracy in their home countries.
What many of us can see is that many of today's migrants claim to be refugees aligned to the laws established by democratic states to address the effects of war when they are, in fact, simply economic opportunists. I think this is what many people object to and yet the media refuses to talk us through this.
The reason I personally am horrified at the situation is that by allowing millions of people to trot across borders and falsely claim "refugee" status, families like yours and like mine get lost in the crowd.
By its very definition, the word "refugee" means someone who does not want to leave friends and family and would prefer to stay in their own homes in their own countries. That's absolutely not what we're witnessing with this migrant crisis at the U.S. border or in Europe.
560
@m. k. jaks There is no reason to speculate or to blame the media: Mr.Trump has effectively crushed the number of refugees being allowed into the country and that is the number for those who are actually “real” refugees. This happened actually also under Obama. The number of refugees from Syria that were accepted to this country was laughable compared to the massive refugee crisis that was caused by the war. It is not the media - it was Mr.Trump signing his executive order who change the rules.
56
@m. k. jaks
It is easy to say "millions... falsely claim refugee status". Can you prove it ?
The US is changing the rules on refugees mostly for internal political reasons, the number of asylum rejections are not a good indicator of "falsely claim" .
Unemployment is at a all time low, why should we be afraid to take in 100k refugees ? The US population is aging, taking in younger people is a good thing.
I legally immigrated to the US as what you would call an economic opportunist. Nobody complains about benefiting from the best and brightest from Europ and Asia turbo charging the US economic and technological competitiveness.
You can't have it both ways on the economic opportunist side, trying to attract people benefiting the US economy while at the same time claiming "country full -go away".
That insular mentality is going to cost the US is technological dominance. If you do not believe me, just look up the demographics of top universities student body, or make up of attendees at any STEM related conference.
Personally, it is probably true that I am 10x more wealthy from being able to "shine" in the US.
Yet, there is more to life than money specially when you already have enough to retire at early. So I am exploring moving out of the US for good.
84
@Joel In at least one article I read, a woman was interviewed saying that she was not actually seeking asylum but was claiming to in order to stay. I doubt that she's rare. Lawyers do probably encourage this.
What I see is a country of deceit. Certainly our president and his administration have no problem with that. But lying on immigration documents, using false social security numbers, and other things people do to stay in the country illegally, well, that's part of the (I suppose now completely acceptable) tradition of lying and cheating to get what you want, even to the point of breaking the law. It's perfectly fine if you can get away with it. Why is that OK?
125
Your family would have been welcomed into the US as true asylum seekers. You were escaping political persecution, a legal definition for asking for asylum. Nearly all the current migrants trying to get into the US are escaping poverty or gang violence. That’s not an excuse for asylum. We have plenty of gang violence and poor people here already. None of them are asking for “asylum” from another first world country like Canada or Great Britain.
17
I know your story from personal experience and not from tales handed down from my parents.I survived but most of my family was killed in Hungary.
We should look at our laws and do the best we can.There are people who are going to die and those who want to come here for improving their economic life ,which is not a sin but not top priority.
What is going on now is unacceptable.People should not come here illegally and expect to stay by gaming the system.Who and when comes here should be a decision by the elected representatives of the voters and not some Central American or bleeding heart liberal.Yes we should be kind and generous but there is a limit and I don't know how many and what kind of new immigrants we can accept without destroying this country.I kind of leaning towards homeless and sick who are American.
12
Ms Nazario has lived in countries that have no law.
She should be thankfull that now she lives in a country where there is one, TRUMP LAW
And soon Jim Crow Laws will be back.
Let's all celebrate the rule of law in America
4
A very moving story, but, before we try to solve the world's problems, I would much prefer to see that we have finally, and once and for all, solved our race relations problems here at home. I would also like to see us effectively address and eliminate the rapidly growing homeless and affordable housing problems we face. We also need to tackle the equality between the sexes problems, but that is a different story. We cannot be all things to all people. So, let's work on and resolve what is in our back yard first before we start adding to our problems. We we have our most pressing problems well in hand, we can address broader problems.
12
" ... zero tolerance and opening the floodgates. But this is a false choice." False choices are what get politicians elected. On so many, many issues (not just immigration).
4
I was a refugee too, Sonia. I share your pain and many of my friends are with you.
4
Here's where I need clarification. This essay is of course heart-breaking. The author says we need to distinguish those who are "truly afraid," but from whom are they to be distinguished? From the people who are hungry? The people who think they'll be able to find jobs here but don't have any promise of that? How do officials determine who are running for their lives and will be killed if they go home, and those who overestimate the ease of establishing themselves here? There must be millions and millions of people who want to come here from Central and South America. How many can we absorb, and what's a fair way to decide who is admitted? Everyone must have a story.
13
There are millions of personal stories, some uplifting and some distressing, and some a mix of the two, but good policy is built on the weighing of different interests and arriving at general legal principles flexible enough to deal with the most egregious of travesties while providing a level of certainty and credibility. Unfortunately our government has abnegated its responsibility to modernize its policies in light of changing circumstances and instead the factions have used the inadequacies of the current laws and policies for the purposes of political advantage and demagoguery.
If I may be excused a dig at the party I tend to support, how does it look to those of us who have legal status, for any of its members to propose that those who don't should be allowed to stay here even after committing crimes. It is an absurd idea sure to provide grist for the propaganda mills of the opposition, thus helping to ensure that the draconian policies of this administration are perpetuated for another 4 years.
13
I am 100% for controlled immigration. We do not have that now. However, one change we need to make that could help us regain control would be to require exit procedures upon leaving the United States. I have been to almost 100 countries and everyone of them, save for the United States, checks your visa and passport upon both arrival and departure. The United States only checks on arrival and thus we have no idea who has stayed beyond the validity of their visa. If we knew who has left, we would by definition know who has not and we could pursue those persons to ensure they complied with our laws and policies. This would be one step toward sanely, and fairly, managing our immigration policies and processes. We need immigrants, legal immigrants; they make us a stronger nation.
20
"the right and the left have argued that the choice Americans face on immigration and asylum is between zero tolerance and opening the floodgates."
As an American faced with those choices, you have to take a stand whether you believe immigration is a benefit or burden, and if it could be both, then how do we protect our interests. Government is the problem not immigration. This debate is a distraction.
2
It's not the author's fault that she's wrong about US immigration policy. The fact is that immigration policy is as convoluted as tax law, but lives are at stake, and the first people to tell you what a mess we have are US agents on the front lines either at the border or behind a desk and those attorneys who work for immigrants who are seeking legal status. The author is compassionate towards immigration but cuts hair about the "intent" of the immigrants - talking about immigration in terms of post WWII refugees; modern refugees that qualify according to the author vs. ineligible opportunists. I'm sorry - because this is a great article that speaks from the perspective of much of America - but this perspective is so wrong. The fact is that immigration policy started 150+ years before WWII, and there are no sacred principles from the aftermath of WWII that form any basis for or behind current policy. The author speaks about refugees as if they are the same as asylum seekers, and as if there's some clear policy covering these immigrants. This deserves a correction. Americans' attempts to oversimplify falsely the realities of immigration are the biggest problem our nation faces in trying to overcome the mess we're in.
8
Just a point. It is mentioned in part 2 that the immigration laws restricted Jews, Asians and Africans. It also restricted Poles, Italians, Slavs, Greeks, and anyone else not represented by at least 2% of the population in 1890. So Jews were not singled out but were excluded along with many others, due to 'nativism ' in America. My dad would have loved to come that early, but was not allowed until 1954 as a WW2 refugee, not part of the original quota system of 1924
8
The flooding of our immigration courts by false claims of people seeking safe refuge are what changed U.S. rules about the border.
Had things stayed EXACTLY how they were for the Nazarios, the border rules would not have needed to be changed - but we have no clue where our fifty million or so noncitizens actually are right now.
No real nation can tolerate this uncertainty.
16
@L osservatore "The flooding of our immigration courts by false claims of people seeking safe refuge..." The great majority of immigrants claiming to seek safe refuge here are doing exactly that. The statement shows a callous disregard for the conditions that some people are forced to live with in other countries.
"...we have no clue where our fifty million or so noncitizens actually are right now." Both the number and the assertion are total fiction. There are some 24 million non-citizens in the country, a majority of whom are here legally. And we know exactly where the great majority are, because they are working and paying taxes, or going to school. Many also own homes and are raising families.
8
"Allow applicants into the United States and monitor them until their court hearings (which nine in 10 do show up for).”
It is incorrect that 9 out of 10 show up for their immigration hearings. Go to the Department of Justice’s site titled Executive Office for Immigration Review: Myths vs. Facts About Immigration Proceedings (dated 5/19). It says that 44% of all aliens who have been let into the country (and not held in detention) to await their asylum hearings, in immigration court, do not attend their hearings.
The courts decided that alien children could not be held in detention for longer than 20 days while awaiting their asylum hearing. We cannot hold the parents if we let their children out so we let entire families out of detention to wait anywhere in the country until their immigration hearings. The problem is that 44% of the families did not attend their hearings. They just disappeared into the general undocumented population.
Congress will not give the Immigration Service enough money to deport most of the migrants who have ignored their immigration hearings or those whom Immigration judges found do not qualify for asylum . (Some progressive Democrats, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, do not want ICE to deport anyone.) While the migrants remain here, their neighbors back home notice that they have not been deported. This encourages them to come here, too.
22
While the author’s family history is interesting and tragic, it’s not until the end when we get to the enticing promise of the subtitle: “we can have an immigration policy that is both sane and humane, or the later: it’s “a false choice.”
Her ideas on how to this, pointing out where both the left and right have to give, are good and give us a method, but are incomplete. They do not answer all key questions…not that I know their answers.
It does not answer: Just how many immigrants/refugees can the U.S. take in, and how do we decide? I can think of few criteria that aren’t biased or faulty. Even with her ideas, there will still be cruelty, albeit less. This includes deporting those whose admission is still rejected. Assuming we “have to have control over borders,” another will be whatever “wall-like” substitutes we come up with. How much cruelty can we live with and still not feel that we should give the Statue of Liberty back?
This does not even include the issues around living in the U.S., such as which services should be offered; and, while the above will help, reconciling the polar emotions we now have that pull us apart.
Of course, as some commenters said, there has to be an environment conducive for such discussions. That requires an idea in and of itself.
Beyond the immigration issue, this “both/and” framework about supposed “either/or’s” is important for many other issues, and something we have to get much better at.
How about a continuing Times feature on that?
1
One other aspect about the immigration debate needs to be included in general discussion: the terrible results of 17th century immigration for indigenous people, native Americans, now called Indians.
It's not only poorer 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation citizens who may feel left behind (rightly AND/OR wrongly) and overtaken by recent immigrants.
The USA is still not decently sharing this land or making up for the way it was settled, although as one of Eastern/Southern European descent, perhaps it's not my business to assert as much.
I wish more news dealt with Indians on reservations and in the general socio-political life of America.
Also much more attention to these voters in debates.
3
Lots of excellent points in Ms. Nazario's essay. As a progressive Dem (Bernie supporter twice; recently on the Bernie-Liz fence), I welcomed her pleas for both refugees and for reasonable immigration laws: most (all?) countries have such laws. We don't have to use Trump's playbook.
So I can understand & condone those fleeing murders & gangs finding a way in, even illegally, especially when international refugee assistance is denied. But no country is under obligation to welcome other nationals who don't live & work here by going through the legal channels.
The slogan "No Person Is Illegal" has always bothered me, even though I understand and appreciate the anti-immigrant, racist feelings that often stoke fear & hatred of illegal immigration. The problem is that we're talking about people's ACTIONS being illegal, not the people themselves. And that is a valid distinction.
I do think the headline, however, overemphasizes that aspect of Ms. Nazario's editorial, when she gave equal time to the inhumane conditions, in both Europe and South America, that make humane refugee policy a must for the next president, who absolutely must not be Trump.
4
Agree 100%. Thank you for sharing your family's story and for making the case of exactly the kind of balanced, compassionate immigration/refugee policy we need.
4
Has an unbiased study been completed of this seeking
to enter the US to distinguish between those fleeing
actual personal persecution for their political beliefs,
those who have been told by Immigration advocates to
claim persecution as soon as they arrive at the border,
but who are, in fact, economic refugees, and those
who are honest and just want to seek and find a better
life in America.
What would happen if we transported all those seeking
asylum to Canada, after all any harbor in a storm, or
to Spain, which evidently needs immigrants given its low
birth rate and abandoning of the countryside ?
What percent of Immigrants fail to show up for their
asylum hearings ?
9
Thank you Sonia for reminding all of us what immigration really means. It does not matter if your parents came from Europe or Central America. We have all come for the same reason, to make a better life for our family in a new country.
3
Toward the end of the Obama administration, there was a bill that had bipartisan support. This would have reformed our entire immigration system. It was tough in many ways, but it also included protection for the so-called "dreamers"--the young people who came here illegally when they were children, accompanying their parents, without knowing at their young age that their parents had brought them here illegally. It was an attempt at true reform. However, it died once Trump was elected. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and have NEVER advocated for open borders. None of my Democratic friends has, either. If you were to hear some of the stories I've heard at a local refugee resettlement agency, including from some of the Iraqis who helped our military during the war in that country, and were promised asylum in this country, you would cry. Add to that the stories of women from Central America who risk rape, torture, and the abduction of their male children into vicious gangs, and I'll tell you what: If I were in their shoes, I'd be on my way to the U.S. I'd do anything to save my family, just like my Irish ancestors did when faced with a horrible famine in the mid-1800s. Some of them were in such bad shape they didn't make it on the perilous journey across the ocean. Those who did are the reason I'm here. The difference, in Trump's eyes? They had white skin. I've talked to Irish illegals in Boston who aren't afraid of deportation b/c their skin is also white.
8
What you forget is that the law says is that asylum seekers should go to the nearest country to make their claim. That country is Mexico. The law does not say that asylum seekers should go to the most prosperous country.
45
I don’t see that stipulation in [ 8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum ].
2
@reader
That is a false statement. There is no the “law says is that asylum seekers should go to the nearest country” nonsense. That is a lie repeatedly spewed on a certain Faux ‘news’ TV channel.
2
In 2009, 45 out of every 100,000 Guatemalans were murdered. By 2018, the murder rate had dropped from 45 to 22. ( For comparison, the murder rate in St.Louis is about 60 per 100,000 people and in Baltimore, it is 56.)
Most of murders in Guatemala are being committed in 2 areas, not the areas where most asylum seekers are from. A U. of Colorado researcher noticed that at least 80% of unaccompanied minors were from Guatemala. In a 4/12/18 article on the Wilson Center’s blog New Security Beat titled "Beyond Violence: Drought and Migration in Central America’s Northern Triangle", she said the violence in Guatemala is concentrated in 2 areas, but only 20% of Guatemalan migrants were from these 2 areas.
In sum, Guatemala has a low murder rate, in comparison with U.S. cities, and most asylum seekers are from less violent areas of Guatemala.
Furthermore, most migrants end up settling in our densely populated urban areas, like Chicago, where there are evermore shootings.
46
@ann
Thank you for the stats. Your numbers agree with my own research.
Why is it that we can't get such details from those who report on the subject?
I've also recently learned that many come from certain areas that are not at all violent, but are somewhat poor, and they want to work here for a few years to send money to the family to build these large concrete houses.
A minimal amount of effort by reporters to explain these facts, would paint, in a few pictures of these houses, the truth of this statement. Yet, we never hear this in the articles and that is why I have hardened to the many reports that dwell on crime, domestic violence and poverty.
19
Trump is trying to stop the gaming of the system that both parties gave a good leaving alone. We have to crack down on the abuse and return these economic migrants back to their countries. Is it racist to say American First, I don't think so. Let's hope the American people wake up and see the damage to our country and act.
10
Pick your facts to fit your argument.
In 2013, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala were some of the most dangerous countries in the world. The U.N. found that Honduras had the world’s highest per-capita homicide rate, with 90.4 homicides per 100,000 people. El Salvador was fourth, with a rate of 41.2 homicides per 100,000 people, and Guatemala was fifth, with a rate of 39.9 homicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, Costa Rica had about 8.5 homicides per 100,000 people and Panama had 17.2 homicides per 100,000 people.
Over the past several years, I've realized that my fellow citizens have a severe lack of understanding of these two things
1) How broken the current U.S. immigration system is and how few "legal" paths are actually available to people, while we continue to admonish and criminalize immigrants for "not following the law"
2) A real appreciation and understanding of how quickly and bad things can get in a country when an unchecked authoritarian is allowed to rule. What do you think makes some immigrants risk everything to escape their countries? And what makes you think that that societal collapse couldn't happen here?
Ironically, the current path our government is on could inadvertently "solve" the immigration crisis by creating an emigration crisis of its own.
10
@Miguel sanchez
An immigration system is not "broken" if it doesn't let in everyone who wants to immigrate. Judging from our nation's ballooning population, I doubt we're in for an emigration crisis anytime soon.
11
Supporters of those atrocities in Argentina used to trivialize the torture and killings by equating that with right wing Argentine individuals suffering exile. Like it or not humans can justify anything that they do no matter how heinous.
We need to be careful about allowing the rule of law become diminished by political power, that can lead to every kind of horror by humans who have no constraints.
The right to safe haven from genocide and political oppression, the loss of the means to survive is a recent one and Trump is out to eliminate to satisfy half of the Americans who vote. There is no real justification for it except the desire to keep strangers out.
3
A beautifully written piece, unusual for its understanding of nuance and perspective, qualities generally absent from any "discussion" of immigration. Thinking takes work. Nuance, perspective, and complexity are clearly out of fashion as intellectual activities, so Twentieth Century (to paraphrase Roger Cohen.) It is so much easier to deal with things through simplistic bumpersticker certainties.
Of course, when it comes to a solution, the devil is in the details, as there is no simple solution to the problem. To the contrary, "solution" and "problem" are in and of themselves relative and culturally defined at any given moment. All we can do, but what we must do, is muddle on, doing so with humility, while keeping our eye and efforts on the prize yet understanding compassionately, even while not accepting, that others see a different prize.
One significant item likely lost in reading the piece: "My mother, Clara Aberbach, was 9 when she left Chodorow, Poland, now part of Ukraine." Left Poland, now part of Ukraine. We, especially younger folks, tend to think of borders as certainties (unless you simply don't believe in them.) In reality, as the New York Times History Atlas so excellently demonstrates, they are human creations which, other than God, are what we most often fight and kill each other about.
9
In 2013, the Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill that would have given immigrants here a path to citizenship, strengthened employment verification, and created a system of work visas. Then Senator Jeff Sessions, whose hostility to immigrants was on the outer fringes of the Republican Party, successfully killed the deal.
Then Trump won the Presidency on building a wall and vilifying immigrants and made Jeff Sessions his AG. Sessions cancelled DACA, called asylum seekers criminals, leading to family separations, said victims of gang violence no longer qualified for asylum, and reversed most of humane asylum law.
Jeff Sessions is gone (although he's running for Senate again) but his anti-immigration zealotry not only remains, it has become the mainstream ideology in the Republican Party. 4,000 children have evidently been permanently separated from their families. Now, they want to punish legal immigrants for using public benefits.
The key to immigration reform is to stop electing people like Trump and Jeff Sessions. We should listen to the better angels of our nature and elect people who understand that immigrants add value to our country, not detract from it, and who want our asylum system to be orderly, yes, but humane as well.
8
@Sherry Jeff Sessions is a true American patriot. I wish he was still our AG.
4
The writers parents were already educated when they came to this country. We allowed them in, yet they still were more comfortable in the country of their origin, enough so that they moved back.
By allowing in huge number of foreigners, we loose our national identity.
We are paying a stiff price for taking on the uneducated manual laborers and their children. Each child’s education is between $12.000 and $16.000 per year. Medical care, housing allowance, food stamps etc all come from our tax dollars. Yes, it maybe selfish not to want to pay for it, not to want to live in a crowded city or on subway, or sit in traffic for hours.
We should let in people who are truly discriminated against for their race, or religion. The Central American countries do not discriminate on those basis. I truly feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough to allow them to change my life.
40
I would rather we have a “national identity” that includes caring for people,
3
@ Marian “ by allowing huge numbers of foreigners we lose our national identity “. Please explain what is our national identity that you fear of losing? Native Americans lost their national identity so please explain what replaced it.
3
Ms. Nazario thank you so much for writing this. You are right and your family story proves your point(s) explicitly. Rock Chalk Jayhawk !
2
As a liberal, I don't want open borders, but I believe we can and should accept far more immigrants than we do (even before the current reprehensible policies). There are vast swaths of this country that are unpopulated or sparsely populated. There are towns and cities that are dying as people flee them in record numbers. There are actually more jobs than there are people to fill them in this country, particularly in blue collar fields. Despite the fear mongering, we have vast opportunities and resources, even now. This country has a history of fearing immigrants because they may "take what's ours", but with very few exceptions, after periods of adjustment, immigrants ultimately benefit and contribute to this country, creating vibrant communities -- and in some instances, reviving them -- instead of taking anything away from anyone.
I believe that there are two kinds of people in this world. Those that think that there is only so much pie in the world and that helping the less fortunate by giving them some pie means less for them. And those that think helping someone now helps that person create their own pie, which results in more pie for everyone. Too many people these days are hording their pie like there will never be another. That is beyond sad, especially when other than indigenous people, we're *all* descended from people who came here searching for their own slice. But I guess once you have yours, too bad for everyone else.
7
@Josie
The vast swaths of this country that are "unpopulated" are mostly so because there is no water.
10
Thank you for sharing your family's story. You remind us all, especially those of us who have become too comfortable and complacent in the land of plenty and of immigrants. Much of what you write here is poignant. But the 14 year old Sonia Nazario who through her advocacy saved her sister is an astounding example for all to follow. Yes. We all need to bring our voices to bear upon our elected officials, who are breaking our own immigration laws, policies and the general will of the majority. We must, at a minimum, allow a fair hearing to those who are in danger, rather than barring them at our gates, after braving a gauntlet of corruption, violence and arbitrary imposition of power. These would be citizens, too, will be families of doctors, journalists, lawyers and every other profession, like the Nazarios.
2
I admire your faith in America. Mine has been sorely tested more and more every year since 1980.
8
@Rocky
I don’t blame you. Much has transpired to test our optimism. Perhaps a few steps back to view a wider breadth of history will help. Be prepared for additional troughs that go along with advances. Some travel to other places where I’ve encountered people confined to much greater misery has also been enlightening. Perhaps, too, Nazario wonders what might have happened if her mother had waited longer to leave Poland. Would she too have been among the dozens of family members who were slaughtered by the Nazis? Then, Sonia would never have been.
@Rocky
Mine has been tested more and more since November 1963.
This bleeding heart liberal does not support open borders. Tens of thousands would flood over the border. Of course we need sensible reform. But we can't sustain taking in everyone our compassion would say yes come here, escape.
We should return to being a world leader with polices to someday effect change in these countries so people are not forced to leave there homes to escape horrors or death.
33
The people in the USA are divided into two groups and are fighting very seriously.
Why should we take care of uninvited foreigners while we are so busy in fighting against each other.
Many jobs here went to other countries like China while rich people here abandoned their own fellow citizens only to earn money for themselves for decades. That's the #1 problem here. Let's resolve this problem first.
If many of the poorest people in this country who are willing to work but have no jobs have some rooms in their minds to care others, let's start to talk about poor people from outside.
16
According to international law, someone fleeing government persecution, natural disasters or government insurrection are required to stop in the first safe country and seek refugee status. Note: wanting a better paid job does not qualify.
Someone who is present in a country is allowed to request asylum if they are at risk of being persecuted by their government. If they have entered the country illegally, they are guilty of a crime, but that does not prohibit them from seeking asylum. But seeking asylum does not excuse the crime: they are still eligible to be detained while awaiting adjudication of their request for asylum.
The people who are being denied asylum, in excess of 95%, are not eligible.
The people being rounded up and deported already have final orders of deportation; they already got their due process.
42
Ms. Nazario's father was a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology. When he was admitted to the US, along with his family, he was one of the highly educated that the country has always admitted to benefit the economy. He would be admitted today under the H1-B visa program, no questions asked.
The fate of refugees at large has nothing to do with her father's naturalization. The elite benefit from rules that apply to them only. And the rules that apply to everyone else are irrelevant. The fate of refugees at large is beside the point, as is this article.
23
What applied in the past may not apply in the future. Really glad your family was saved, and that we continue to offer at least some people sanctuary still. However, the world will become so dysfunctional in the near future and the amount of refugees will climb to untenable levels such that there will be nowhere for anyone to go. Your points apply to today, but likely will be moot tomorrow.
In our life times we are likely to see world refugee numbers climb to near a billion if not more. This will be because of climate change but also the rise of authoritarian governments and the fall of democracy. As is happening right now in the US and actually has been happening all throughout South America, Europe and everywhere else. The people were not bright enough to hang on to democracy. They are easily cowed and weak.
The people farmers will make money though.
7
After the Holocaust, countries around the world realized they had erred in not allowing refugees to request asylum. They signed on to the UN Convention on Refugees which allows anyone who is fleeing persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, or membership in a specific organization to apply for asylum in another country. The UN Convention on Refugees does not say that those who are fleeing domestic or gang violence may apply for asylum; it is limited in whom it covers.
In 1984, to much fanfare, many Latin American countries announced that they would expand the classes of people to whom they would offer refugee status. They said they would offer asylum to anyone who was fleeing generalized violence or internal conflicts. Mexico signed on to this Cartagena Declaration, and is now encouraging Central Americans to apply for asylum there.
Mexico is dangerous along its border with the U.S., but much of the country is relatively safe. Mexico’s president has promised jobs for the Central Americans who qualify for asylum. If they are seeking safety or jobs, there is no reason for them to come here where virtually none of them meet the criteria set out by the UN Convention on Refugees.
26
@ann
"They signed on to the UN Convention on Refugees which allows anyone who is fleeing persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, or membership in a specific organization to apply for asylum in another country."
I agree, but the problem has occurred because of the interpretation of "membership in a specific organization (social group)" that has been so skewed by Immigration Judges when deciding particular cases.
One of these expansive decisions was in 2014 by three (3) Bureau of Immigration Appeals judges who decided in favor of a woman from a Central American country who was escaping domestic violence. That had the effect of opening up the social group category to "gang and domestic violence".
This BIG decision, rendered outside the halls of Congress, has had much to do with the swelling numbers of immigrants who can use this reason to get in the door. How this category can be a social group is completely mind boggling.
... and, I would say, this is about the only thing, other than recusing himself from the Russia investigation, that AG Sessions got right.
4
I support legal immigration from anywhere, and genuine political asylum. Indeed my godson from Iraq received PA in this country. However, since 1923 the USA has had legal and illegal categories whereas before anyone could enter except Chineseand Japanese. The USA had a racist quota system until 1965. Criteria for PA are: well-founded fear of persecution on national, ethnic, religious, political or perceived membership in a social class. None of this applies to illegals from Central America unless they an prove they are in one or more categories. Fear of gang violence as repulive as it is is not enough nor is "we do the work you Americans don't want to do." As much as I'd like to live in Spain or Italy (I can speak both languages and Catalan) I can't pluck myself down there and say, "I like it here so I'm staying even if you don't like it."
23
The plight of America's lower income citizens and legal residents is worsening on account of both parties.
Cheap undocumented labour is encroaching on more labour occupations, which further depresses wages, and creates even more "made-in-America" jobs that Americans won't take because the pay and benefits are too low.
This paves the way for more undocumented immigrants to take these unwanted jobs. And this movement has received more than tacit approval from the G.O.P. , the Dems, big business, and families who are looking to hire domestic workers at slave wages. .
It's going to get way worse before it ever gets better.
19
Are we talking about admitting 71+ million refugees to a country of 330 million population?
This article seems to demonstrate that fixing problems at the source is the solution, not immigration.
27
with many homeless and poor us citizens all immigration should be stopped unless they are highly educated
5
I live in a state that is predominantly rural. Without immigrants, the small-town life that I remember (I'm 55) will disappear. Most of the small businesses and restaurants in rural Iowa are owned and run by immigrants. We have extremely low unemployment, even considering that we have large numbers of undocumented people working in agriculture and food production. Legal and undocumented folks also pay taxes and social security, which further helps me, especially in a state with high tax rates. Immigrants make my life better, and their cheap labor keeps your food prices down.
One thing that people forget about is that undocumented people often have children who are American citizens--they are not "stealing" benefits from Americans--they are Americans.
6
@Sarah A
There are many young black males in the South and in inner cities who are unemployed.
Any labor needs a State may have should be addressed to this population and efforts made to attract and support these people to the location where labor is needed. Or, perhaps people from Appalachia?
With a workforce participation rate as low as our is, the first effort should focus on these people and ways to attract them and make them feel safe to leave their homes instead of luring the desperate to leave their countries.
7
For those of us born and raised in the United States, we grew up and naively comfortable with certain freedoms regardless of our level or privilege. Many of our freedoms are highlighted in this wonderfully written article that I feel makes a U-turn near the end.
In school, we were taught about our freedom and for how hard it was fought to gain and keep. In those same classes, we were taught the idea of the “melting pot’” which, in retrospect, was a bit of a gloss over of the hard realities of assimilation in the US. Nonetheless, the central point of the lesson was that we are a nation with room in the land and within our hearts to welcome others who came here for the same reasons our own families came.
Yes, we live in a different world than the days of our ancestors’ voyages, and we do need to know who comes into our nation. But we also live in a world of despots, war, toil and famine, not to mention something our own ancestors never encountered, drug cartels. Meanwhile, “legal” immigration in the US goes to those who win a lottery and pay the wizened system at least $10,000.
We live with a freedom created by our nation’s founders, and extolled by every American who has ever waved a flag. We cannot conceal our nation’s mission behind a wall called “laws” when those walls did not exist for our own ancestors. New York Harbor features the Statue of Liberty extolling our “golden door,” not a flashing neon sign reading “No Vacancy due to New Laws.”
1
If I were an ambitious poor Mexican and I could come and work in Mr. Koch's chicken processing plant, I would come here illegally, too.
And come again if I were caught and sent back.
If you want to stop illegals coming, stop hiring them.
Same for farm labor, construction, restaurants, hotels, housekeeping, domestic workers, etc.
Including some of Mr. Trump's properties.
20
Basic foundations to this discussion. It is a discussion that needs to be engaged in. Start with the Lady in New York Harbor and her well known symbolism. Who can argue with that? Then look at demographics - they are immutable. Here we see a lowering birth rate, greater longevity and an aging population. Throw into the pot that area/size wise we are the 5th largest nation in the world. We make up less than 5% of the worlds population. Our population density is ranked #174 in the world. That tells me that we have a need for immigration. That tells me that we have an abundance of room and living space. So, what's the problem? The Process! Nothing that at this point in time cannot be figured out. Environmental effects of increased population can be controlled. Listen to the Environmentalist - but keep in mind that some of those organizations are bent on fund raising. We are well on our way toward solving climate change issues. But, those issues are not all man made. (Consider siltation for one - mostly an uncontrollable natural occurrence = rising sea levels, larger warming & heat trapping surface). Enough. Keep thinking!
3
@Gordon Jones
We are not densely populated because much of the country is arid or semi arid. A lot of our food is raised by farmers on the high plains who draw on water from the Ogadalla Aquifer. The U. of Denver Water Law Review has a 5/17 /18 article titled "Crisis on the High Plains: The Loss of America’s Largest Aquifer – the Ogallala” which said the following:
"The Ogallala Aquifer supports an astounding one-sixth of the world’s grain produce …"
"The Ogallala Aquifer ... underlies eight different states, stretching across America’s High Plains from South Dakota down to Northern Texas. It is an unconfined aquifer that is recharged almost exclusively by rainwater and snowmelt, but given the semiarid climate of the High Plains, recharge is minimal. In some areas, the water table is dropping as much as two feet a year, but recharge in the aquifer only averages around three inches annually."
"The aquifer provides nearly all of the water for residential, industrial, and agricultural uses in the High Plains region. Irrigated agriculture is particularly straining on the aquifer as the region is responsible for one-fifth of the wheat, corn, cotton, and cattle produced in the United States."
States, such as your own, that draw water from the Colorado recently had to sign an agreement limiting how much they would take.
The U.S. already has the world’s 3rd largest population. Our environment is warning us to severely limit the number of immigrants we accept.
10
@ann
You have such a good command of the facts and a rational way of looking at them.
I just wish our reporters could do the same. Yet, all we hear, mostly, is that we are a nation of immigrants and, for millions of us out here, that just isn't a reasonable position.
8
I agree with your criticisms Phil. Also, how about if “Refugees” could apply at a US Embassy in their home countries where they can access their documentation and wait out their court dates without a long dangerous journey to US as vulnerable women and innocent children.
What we also need is to abolish the electoral college and expand the Senate to allow more Senators from the more populous States.
Maybe a US Constitution updated for the TwentyFirst Century!
3
George Gordon, Lord Byron, argued that oppressed people must fend for themselves by themselves:
"Hereditary bondsmen! Know ye not /
Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?"
(Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (1812–18) canto 2, st. 76.)
Today we can do better than that, without the prospect of admitting to the United States tens of millions of refugees and having to decide which ones would be emigrating primarily for economic reasons, and thus not entitled to resettlement.
The solution is to place the source countries in U.N. trusteeships, with international civil servants governing them competently and with greatly reduced corruption.
There are recent precedents. Brazilian troops were brought in to quell civil unrest in Haiti under a U.N. mandate. Britain effectively took over Sierra Leone's affairs when the country couldn't govern itself. France seems to run much of francophone Africa de facto, despite no longer being the formal colonial power.
Trusteeships are better than providing a refugee-exodus safety valve that allows corrupt governments to stay in power.
6
@Cyclist
I agree. I have often thought something like this by the UN or a neutral zone managed by the UN in these places as the best way to manage immigrants and restore functionality to these countries.
6
Millions of people are trying to claim asylum because they want to immigrate to the US. They firmly believe they will have a better life here. The reality is that America is no longer a nation that can offer a decent life to unskilled laborers. What those who support unlimited migration don’t want to recognize is the fact that the only jobs that these “asylum seekers” will ever find do not pay living wages. Migration is a big business. The smugglers probably make more money from smuggling migrants than they make from smuggling drugs. Hostility to illegal migrants is growing. It has been a major factor in getting Trump elected. Refusal to recognize this fact might go a long way to re-elect Trump.
21
So, can everyone agree that it's a good idea of Trumps to require Mexico, a safe state, to hold the asylum seekers until their application is adjudicated? Trump scored mega with this humane solution. Now maybe the Democratic candidates can come up with their own good ideas that will trump the Trump. Prior administrations should really have done it, but..............
14
We owe would be immigrants decent treatment. We do not owe them guaranteed entry. Unfortunately both trump and the immigrants have forgotten the two sentences go together
12
Can somebody tell me what pressure the US government is applying to those countries people are fleeing to clean up their act? Beside Venezuela, whose oil we want, who else?
5
Thanks for this excellent telling of a story that reminds me why the Statue of Liberty sets the standard by which we should aspire to be as a nation, which remains the land of brave and the home of the free.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has had great hypocrisy in how it has supported brutal, bloodthirsty dictators while tearing down democracies in South and Central American the last century or more.
Until the overwhelming corruption of billionaires and the companies they use for their legalized kleptocracy is stopped, the cruel and absolutely immoral, unethical behavior that has caused so many to flee from the nations of our southern neighbors and now places like Syria and Turkey will continue and the new Gestapo like mentality of the U.S. White House members will be there to meet those seeking legitimate refuge from persecution.
Let us never forget and let us never surrender to fascism, cruelty that some among us call evil.
3
Republicans can claim to support legal immigration and claim "the left" wants open borders, sanctuary cities, and a taco truck on every corner, but until I see any of you actually say something about the Administration who is working to curb even LEGAL immigration, I'll continue to assume you're motivated more by a "fear of other"... for lack of a stronger term, rather than good faith immigration reform.
5
When considering this article's title 'What part of Illegal don't you understand?', how about we look at the writing's subsuming notion, '.....we can have an immigration policy that is both sane and humane', keying on the words 'sane and humane'?
So, with that said, it needs to be taken for granted because the architect behind Donald Trump's immigration policy is Stephen Miller, any notion that 'common sense can prevail' here with 'sanity and humanity' administered is simply out the window.
A thorough read of Wikipedia's biography of Stephen Miller will provide the information one needs to understand, in plain and simple language, what anyone needs to understand if they're looking for an explanation as to why having an immigration policy that is both sane and humane is 'out the window'.
5
The New York Times and other media outlets endlessly publish the sad stories of refugees, undocumented immigrants, and others struggling to get into and remain inside of the United States.
What these stories never seem to focus on are the very real side effects of their arrival and their impact on U.S. citizens. Examples include:
-- public schools, already struggling with high student to teacher ratios and insufficient budgets, having to take on unaccompanied minors from Central America who speak no English but have a legal right, per the U.S. Supreme Court, to a public school education -- at the cost of resources that could be used for U.S. citizen students.
-- Increased competition with vulnerable U.S. citizens for affordable housing in our largest cities, where immigrants tend to reside
-- Depressed wages for the lowest U.S. citizen workers who must be paid the U.S. minimum wage and who could earn more were it not for a large (and undocumented) workforce willing to work for less than the U.S. legally required minimum wage or the going market rate for U.S. citizens
If only one party is willing to acknowledge and address the negative aspects of immigration, that party will continue to reap the rewards at the ballot box.
56
The US population has more than doubled in my lifetime...65 years. In that same period, the world population has nearly quadrupled. In other words...unsustainable!
So please stop this incessant pro/con argument, ad nauseam, over ‘immigration’. It’s akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
We best be talking about...and actually acting upon..the burden of overpopulation. Because ‘overpopulation’ is the root cause of many...if not most...of the ills facing the world today.
30
Why not go bellow this at Trump and the GOP?
They’re the ones attacking all the pop control measures and institutions.
7
Tell that to the powerful Catholic Church.
10
There is so much incorrect with this narrative, it's impossible to comment on its entirety.
But this paragraph can probably signify how wrong you are:
"I often get asked: What part of “illegal” don’t you understand? Well, our laws say we have to help people who are running for their lives. Take it from a Nazario: President Trump is the one who has broken the law"
Well - Our immigration laws are in place to insure a secure United States as well as have a legal, orderly process to enter our country, and not solely to allow anyone to enter because of the horrors they have faced (so your horrors were worse than someone from say, Hondouras?? Says who??)
Undoubtedly, (and unfortunately) there will always be horrors in the world which people will want to run from (rightfully so).
Yes, we have an obligation to help these people. But, if they want to become part of a country of laws, they need to adhere to ours before they can enter.
19
You know, what with the Internet and all, it’s really easy to look up our laws and treaties on immigration and refugees, avoid embarassing yourself like this.
The article is precisely correct.
3
@DB
The majority are economic migrants. Meanwhile, neither domestic violence, gang violence, nor poor living conditions are grounds for asylum in the United States.
We may feel compassion for their unfortunate circumstances, but we are not ‘obligated’ to offer asylum to them.
21
@Susanna
America has always been a country to help those in need.
So perhaps "obligated" might not be the correct wording
I don't know many cases of Americans or immigrants seeking asylum FROM America. If the US was so extremely racist and xenophobic I would expect thousands if not millions of refugees running FROM the US to other countries. I certainly wouldn't expect millions of migrants trying to get TO the US only to face racist and xenophobic persecution. Something is wrong with this narrative.
25
You made me remember the wonderful friends that came to Colombia during the far right terrible regime in their country. They brought their deep knowledge in advertising and marketing. Many consumer goods companies enjoyed the talent of those incredible persons. Leonardo Fabio an excellent singer, composer, film director and screen writer lived for 9 years in Pereira a city in the coffee region of my country. His songs are beautiful and his voice enchanted many young women in the 60s, Yes, immigrants are good because their brain helps to create wealth and happiness. Like Elon Musk here. Yeah.
@M Martínez
I have often wondered what effect the USA's brain drain on the rest of the world really is. Sure, it's good for us here, but what if Elon Musk had done something like he's done in South Africa? What if Steve Jobs' brilliant dad had had his kids in Syria or Lebanon?
The number of people who one can ask such a question about is seemingly endless. What would have happened in the world if all the brilliant students who've studied here had been vigorously encouraged to go back to their homelands to make the world a better place?
The US has been able to coast along with an increasingly inferior primary education system for years now because we have a constant infusion of the best students from everywhere else for higher education. I have personally profited from the brilliant ideas of Musk and Jobs and other brilliant immigrant's kids, and they would be far less likely to have become billionaires in the lands of their parents, (well, Jobs' mom was European...) BUT, is it really the best thing over all? Does it help the world that so many brilliant people come here to study, and then stay?
I just think it would be better for the rest of the world if the USA stopped siphoning off such folks, and better for us if we worked harder to grow our own.
6
@SB
Of course, if such people are facing certain death in their homelands, they're welcome here.
The US is lucky that Germany kicked out so many brilliant Jewish physicists, and that we did take them in; and I suppose that the world is lucky that the US developed the bomb and the Nazis never got close.
My family were also war refugees in the 1960s and we are all eternally grateful for having been given that refuge.
As memory serves the requests and paperwork took a couple of years and were done from outside the country as is recommended by all UN organisations and laws.
Showing up by the hundreds of thousands at any border when there are no hot wars or persecutions (the official definition of refugees) is understandably not seen the same way as official refugees with completed dossiers vetted by UN organisations .... before arriving in the country that accepts to take in the refugees.
19
There is a fundamental difference between the systemic governmental persecution of genuine political refugees and the millions who have come here (over the past few decades) for economic reasons- either illegally or by faking political asylum. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to discern the difference.
For a myriad of reasons, repeated administrations have turned a blind eye to the abuse and now the entire refugee/asylum system is in disrepute
16
Liberals may not like this, but the US should use its muscle and financial position to "temporarily colonize" places like Honduras. Sure, sounds like imperialism at first, but the bottom line is that the problems of Central American countries have become our problem. We should fix them, because whatever imperfect order we establish in those countries will still be better than the lawless disorder they live with and we suffer with as a consequence.
5
@T Mo
Where has that ever worked?
People would rather be ruled badly by their own than justly by a foreigner.
Not that the US would rule justly. We wouldn't.
For further examples of US intervention I direct you to Libya, Haiti, Nicaragua...
1
If the refugees claim that they are persecuted or in danger in Mexico they can still be admitted to the US (from Mexico). Otherwise Mexico will be considered a safe country. They are not being sent back to the countries where they claim persecution. Mexico is being generous with work permits and visas.
However, I do think that throwing migrants back to dangerous areas in Mexico, without arranging for their safe travel to better parts of the country, is inhumane.
The only long term solution is to fix Central American countries. Their governments need to take some responsibility and deal with the cartels like Kurds are dealing with ISIS.
9
While I sympathize with "asylum seekers" the writers expectations are a little irrational. Everyone (or almost everyone) who crosses the border or stops at the border requests asylum. That is what they are told to do. These things take time and this is not an overnight fix.
Imagine that thousands of people are coming to your border all requesting asylum. Are they all legitimate asylum seekers? How would we know until they have a hearing. Our resources are stretched beyond what we can handle. Not everyone who is applying for asylum qualifies. in fact the vast majority do not. Most are "Economic Asylum Seekers." Not the same thing as someone whose life is in danger if they are not granted asylum. And sadly, not all those who lives are actually in danger will be granted asylum. Sad but true.
We cannot take in the "world." No country can.
25
@Rozie James
Unless you're an American Indian you are a decendant of those who came here to America to abandon where they lived and for specific reasons.
That's YOU and places YOU at par with anyone seeking to come here guided by the similar intentions of your forefathers.
What? So you get all the birthday cake and toss the candles to lick the frosting from for the rest of us? No.
Please, open your neural pathways so they expand to include more rational assumptions.
2
@merc
There are perfectly valid arguments, pro and con, for immigration. Being dismissive of those with a contrary view is not a winning argument.
7
Excellent piece. It's astonishing what America has become under the Republicans, betraying its hope and promise..
All Americans should read it.
4
"the right and the left have argued that the choice Americans face on immigration and asylum is between zero tolerance and opening the floodgates."
The real problem is that anything LESS than opening the floodgates will always be demagogued by the left as racist xenophobia. The "conversation" will always end there because I and millions of other like minded Americans are tired of being called racist xenophobes because we don't agree with the position taken by the left on this issue and a host of other issues.
665
@Jordan: The US is in denial of population issues. China is the only large country that ever imposed a population limitation policy. Uighurs and others are persecuted for high birth rates there now.
50
This is the best thing written here. And it illustrates why we have trump. Extremism on the left is as dangerous, maybe more so, than extremism on the right.
117
@Jordan I could equally argue that the real problem is that anything LESS than completely closed borders will be opposed by people on the right as somehow protecting America's values. The whole point of this essay is that there is a middle ground, and it is a middle ground that we have achieved before and could again if there could just be a reasonable dialogue. Unfortunately, what gathers the attention are the extremes on both left and right.
237
The bottom line on immigration in 2020 is very different than many decades ago. In 2020 we need immigrants to come and work and do the jobs Americans aren't will to do. Exhibit A is these so called illegal immigrants literally bring food to our tables. If you and your family want to continue to eat we need to figure out a way to make that happen. Building walls and calling human beings illegal is not the answer.
3
@George Or, we could have American employers pay a living wage to American employees, rather than simply rely on cheap labor.
15
@George I seem to remember a time before massive illegal immigration and Spanish language everything. It was in the dark old days of the 1990s.
And somehow back then Americans were able to eat and survive without massive numbers of illegal immigrants waving their nation's flags and demanding that all of their relatives be allowed to enter.
12
@Lilo I remember those days, too, and I miss them.
8
Comprehensive, sensible immigration reform could happen in a matter of days. But powerful interests in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and increasingly healthcare profit greatly from the status quo.
The toxic influence of big money in our politics poisons almost every aspect of public policy, to the detriment of real people.
9
I see the typical pop control types are out cheering for Trump, and ignoring the fact that the guy’s attacked every single pop control program or agency this country has, and supports around the world.
3
A better long term solution would be to help these other countries to fix their issues. If we could help create even the smallest hope for the people that they or their children could have a better future, they would stay and work towards it.
8
1. Trump does not care.
2. Legal entry vs illegal entry is the problem.. for whatever the reason illegal entry takes place.
3. Trump does not care.
4. Those here illegally are not entities t9btge same benefits and privileges as those here legally or born here.
5. This issue has been kicked down the road for far too long.
6. While DACA was sort of a fix, it has done nothing and will do nothing to solve the overall problem.
7. Trump does not care.
8. Certain groups have become the "face" of illegal immigration.
9. What about people from China, Africa, the Caribbean, Poland.. Pick a country... any country. I bet they have citizens who are here illegally.
.. Or Ireland, whose visiting leader asks for amnesty each year for those in the US illegally. They are spared the glances of possibly being here illegally.. Language and skin color help.. Let's be brutally real and honest.
10. Some people have a notion that certain people have no place in this country.
11. Anyone remember Manifest Destiny, slavery, Trail of Tears..
12. Trump probably never heard of two of the above.
12. Trump does not care.
4
@Mamma's Child
Illegal Irish, Chaldeans, Croats, and Albanians have been deported as well.
The majority of illegal immigrants are from Spanish speaking countries in this hemisphere.
And most of the most aggressive advocates for illegal immigration also seem to come from Spanish speaking countries in this hemisphere.
9
Definition:
Chaldeans are Aramaic-speaking, Eastern Rite Catholics that are indigenous to Iraq. Chaldeans have a history that spans more-than 5,500 years, dating back to Mesopotamia, which was known as the cradle of civilization and is present day Iraq.
Oh yeah.. Cause thousands of Chaldeans were already in the US!
Didn't Trump ban modern day Chaldeans / Iraqi people from entering the US??
I guess if you do not admit someone, that is one way of avoiding the deportation issue.
I never want to hear "what part of 'illegal'..." used as a justification for how we now treat asylum seekers. Slavery was legal. Putting Japanese in camps was legal. Nazi anti-Jewish actions were legal.
The way so many Americans have accepted Trump's assault on what we all thought, or hoped, were unquestionable American values-not just on immigration- keeps me awake at night.
As i read this article, among all the remarkable aspects of this saga, what really stopped me in my tracks was her suggestion that we need to replace the DOJ to make the immigration courts independent. Of course, she is correct, and that should frighten us badly!
283
@steve
It was never legal to put American citizens of Japanese extraction in camps. That is the kind of thing Democrats do, not Republicans. It is an absurdity to equate the actions of Trump to the actions of the racist FDR. The progressive hero imposed minimum wage laws in order to prevent Black men migrating to the North from competing with white men for employment.
Immigration courts are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary, although decisions of the executive branch can be appealed to the federal judicial courts. But it takes some actual evidence.
8
@ebmem
In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the SCOTUS held that the law allowing internment of Japanese-Americans (US citizens) was constitutional. As with many decisions handed down in the midst of panic and public anxiety about some issue, this is now pretty broadly recognized as a bad decision, but it nonetheless did find internment was legal.
35
@ebmem
If you take a look at actual history you will see that usually issues of racism are driven by regional considerations. While Democrats certainly were downright wrong and immoral in supporting slavery and Jim Crow, in the 60's President Johnson accepted demolition of the Southern Democratic Party as a price for passing and supporting civil rights legislation. The Republican's, who now depend on Southern support, are the ones who developed a "Southern Strategy" to weaken or destroy civil rights legislation such as the voting rights act. In due fairness, "The North" has quite a bit of racism, but this racism has not been routinely been etched in legal stone.
Roosevelt's policies disturbingly had the vast majority of Republican support (Two exceptions), not that it made it right.
30
Born - 1941 - England -father career soldier - British Army - killed 1943. Lived on outskirts of London - though young - remember bombing, damage, fires, air raid shelters. Emigrated 1951. Across the pond - German built French liner/part of war reparations - Germany to France. Liner crammed with war refugees - many different languages spoken. Enter NY Harbor - on deck - packed. Passengers rush to the Starboard railing. I followed. Passengers laughing, crying, families hugging, praying. Why? The Statue of Liberty in its full glory! English speaking adults explained its symbolism to me. That moment frozen in my mind forever! Naturalized citizen, America has been good to me and mine. The solid foundation of the immigration issue is "The New Colossus". Go on line, read it, take it to heart. Then search your heart and soul. We are a melting pot, always have been, always will be. Assimilation works!!
4
My mother had this same experience when you immigrated here. Thank you for sharing.
1
I would agree, except for two problems: First, how do we determine whether people are telling the truth about fleeing from danger? Secondly, we cannot import one third of Hondurans, as well as large chunks of El Salvadorans and Guatemalans. You didn't even mention the millions who have fled or are fleeing Syria. How about the girls in Africa who still fear genital mutilation? How about the Uighurs in China and the Muslims in India? If we granted refugee status to all those persons we would have well over a billion people in the U.S.
31
Uh...by using our long-standing, effective processes for evaluating requests for asylum?
Otherwise, oh, give it a rest. The only people obsessed with this, “Let in a billion people,” jazz is far-right wacko birds.
1
@Robert And when asylum seekers fail their hearings and refuse to leave the country? Are you willing to deport them, or will that be "inhumane"?
29
The late civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, who chaired President Clinton's immigration reform commission, said that for an immigration policy to be credible, it is necessary to deport people. What's not to understand? We are either a sovereign nation based on the rule of law or we are not; there is no middle ground.
42
I do agree with Ms. Nazario with much of the spirit of her piece, but in my opinion comparisons to the constant tsunami of immigrants crossing our border to other humanitarian catastrophes in the past are false equivalencies.
I don't believe that there is a crisis so huge in Central America that it warrants the displacement of 300,000+ "refugees" every year; we would hear about a conflict that produces constantly. The referenced MSF survey also has huge holes in it, according to the survey itself: "There were some limitations in the scope of the data collection, and our sample may be over-representative of men..." As a Spanish-speaking American who is very familiar with the culture, I'm quite sure that the people surveyed are sticking to their story; from their POV, one government official is the same as any other.
Gang violence is not the same as war; we ourselves have huge problems in cities like Chicago and St. Louis, but we aren't fleeing to Canada because of it.
Living by the rule of law means we can't pick and choose which to follow. The vast majority of these people are breaking two laws entering our country: not having a proper visa, and lying about being a refugee. They are also needlessly putting children at risk.
I grew up in Italy in the 70s, called "the years of lead" because of all the bullets from the Mafia, terrorists, trigger-happy police. There was no mass migration to Germany. This is mostly economic; that is not what our refugee laws are meant for.
32
In all the frenzied debate about immigration, we seem to have forgotten that economic migrants are governed by "push-pull" factors.
When economic conditions in an immigrant's homeland become sufficiently dire, they feel a powerful "push" to leave in search of economic security.
The "pull" is a nation that welcomes their labor.
This is the dynamic that for decades has animated illicit immigration from the southern hemisphere to the United States.
It is a phenomenon that to a large extent is self-regulating.
When jobs for unskilled labor dry up, as happened in 2008, immigration becomes a trickle and even reverses. That's why many Mexican undocumented immigrants returned home.
My great grandparents crossed the Mexico-Texas border more than 100 years ago.
There was no one to even question them.
America did not fall apart. Instead, it benefited from my ancestors. Some started small businesses, others picked crops or cleaned rich people's homes.
The American economy is structured to accommodate unskilled workers who will labor for low wages.
They are not competing with American workers, who disdain jobs slaughtering poultry or laboring as poorly paid janitors.
Xenophobia can make us believe that America is under siege because people from poor countries have arrived to make new lives here, slipping into jobs tailored for them.
There is no crisis, just the illusion of one.
4
@Ricardo Chavira It is the one-third of Hondurans, and 46% of young people in Central America, who "plan on" moving here, that incites concern.
19
@Talbot
Plan on is the key phrase. How can you are anyone conclude with certainty these people will embark on their journeys and manage to elude border police?
And even if they do make it to the U.S., how specifically does their presence in any way affect you?
@Ricardo Chavira Illegals cost American tax payers 140 billion a year in education, health care, government benefits, and the costs of social services and incarceration.
2
Even Bernie Sanders states that undocumented workers create lowers wages and benefits for America's lower income citizens and legal residents.
25
@Michael
Well, wouldn't that also include homeless vets who also work day labor jobs? Do you want to throw THEM out of the country too?
5
This author fails to see the difference between fleeing persecution and running to the US to sit in Santa's lap.
I live in a small city an hour north of the border. We have been overrun for more than a decade here. Citizens have difficulties accessing services because they have been stretched so tight to service those who have no right to them.
It is not unnoticed that the majority of those commenting critically with regard to immigration policy hail from places where it would be difficult to actually step off the pavement. I'd invite each and every one of you to come spend a week in Alamogordo. It is an eye opening experience.
38
Golly, Wacky, maybe Trump shouldn’t have pulled all your Border Patrol agents down to the Texas border so he could play tough guy.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/26/717299664/new-mexico-county-declares-local-emergency-over-abandoned-border-patrol-checkpoi
1
@wacky Trump's fan base is overrun by the KKK, which officially endorsed his campaign for president in 2016. He also is overrun with Neonazis.
Do you ever complain about it?
1
@Jbugko That is Antifa rhetoric. Trump supporters are everywhere, everywhere, even here in liberal NYC. You know some even if you think you don’t.
2
A powerful and moving tale.
Maybe we would have been better off with a Secretary of State who tells thugs in other countries we will use all means necessary to prevent mass torture of innocent citizens or residents. In Argentina, Saudi Arabia, N Korea, China and other places; yes even Israel.
The US cannot police the world; but thanks to Trump we have the potent weapon of sanctions. We should use that weapon against the worst offenders with conviction and passion. Brutality and repression are the enemies - not a free press or refugees.
2
Immigration is a civil issue, not criminal.
The term illegal doesn't apply. That being said, countries have a right to set immigration policies and enforce compliance.
The reality is that countries exist and and borders are real.
9
@Humberto Title 8 of the U.S. Code identifies federal criminal offenses pertaining to immigration and nationality, including the following two entry-related offenses:
“Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
“Illegal Re-Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter, attempt to unlawfully reenter, or to be found in the United States after having been deported, ordered removed, or denied admission. This crime is punishable as a felony with a maximum sentence of two years in prison. Higher penalties apply if the person was previously removed after having been convicted of certain crimes: up to 10 years for a single felony conviction (other than an aggravated felony conviction) or three misdemeanor convictions involving drugs or crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony conviction.
10
@Humberto
Disagree. It should be always considered as a criminal issue.
One reason, especially, is that there are some who may arrive at our borders who may be suspicious but there are no obvious reasons to detain them. With illegal entry as a crime, then Border officials have a tool to jail anyone presenting at our border.
2
@Talbot Thank you for clarifying that.
1
The main problem with Nazario's argument is that reasons for asylum are very clearly defined and *don't* include crime or corruption in their home countries. Allowing that is an invitation for millions of people to make their way to the US, to Europe or any other country that is well governed. In addition, if people are allowed to stay in the US until their case is heard (which can take years) they often either don't show up or if denied they disappear not to be seen again. If overall numbers were low it might be possible to tolerate this as we did for decades, but that becomes impossible when you're receiving hundreds of thousands to millions of people.
Some like to bring up that there used to be effectively no immigration laws and everyone was let in. That's true. However it's also true that there were no government run social programs at the time and people lived or died on their own efforts or on charity from others. Today, there can be costs in excess of $10,000 per person and even more if there are children that citizens are being asked to pay. Being generous with other people's money isn't a virtue.
26
@Locke_
And also we had not had 9/11 and watched people jumping out of windows and first responders running into flaming buildings.
Borders are necessary and must be enforced and businesses hiring illegals immigrants should be fined and punished.
3
Interesting to read people's comments about how the U.S. isn't what it once was - How it doesn't welcome the needy anymore. Sorry, which time period are you talking about? This country was built on the backs' of enslaved people. I don't know what great past you're talking about.
9
@Diana Slaves were not the only people who built this great country. My ancestors did so as well.
4
Families such as yours have so little to do with the current wave of refugees/migrants/invaders from the south, that it is most highly offensive of you to make such false comparisons. Use your head. And don't waste your moral capital on these false comparisions. It deprives it of value.
26
Excellent column with realistic goals. I'm a Democrat who hasn't seen one Dem candidate broach this issue with a sane solution, other than to talk in terms of what seems to be open borders. No candidate is precisely calling for open borders, but all are saying things that imply that's the answer to this problem. They advocate getting rid of ICE, decriminalizing border crossings, and making health care available to all the immigrants, legal or otherwise. This is an open invitation to citizens of those dangerous Latin countries.
One third of Honduras planning to come here? How do we
assess those in true need? Open borders is not the solution, but a sane policy advocated by the Democrats would help this problem. Not facing this dilemma only strengthens Trump, because few of us want open borders.
The candidates must face this issue with rational solutions and open borders is not the answer. Candidates are letting the answer fall into Trump's hands, which is the only fix we're hearing, in lieu of a real debate on the issue. We don't want open borders, but the Dems seem intent on giving the impression that they're in favor of this solution. Let's hear something realistic from the candidates regarding this real and pressing problem or the populace will take the only solution presented, and that's the Trump plan.
29
Seems like this social/internet revolution we are in the midst of is encouraging so many people in poorer countries to ‘see’ a better life in another place. ‘The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence’. So many immigrants are economic ones seeking a better life style. We need to provide leadership to would-be immigrants to help them reform the corrupt and or non-working governments where they live because it seems way too many think Europe and the USA and Canada is their answer. It is impossible to know how many the US can assimilate, but we need to really study this question because of horrible situations and conditions such as Nazario describes her family has experienced.
4
Everyone talks about their own personal story from another time , people are the same everywhere they want a future for their children , work and a nice place to live. Ive lived on four continents and have seen some of the problems in the third world , like for example many prefer to live in the cities because the countryside is too dangerous ie no rule of law. This leads to overcrowding , crime , people living in areas with no water, water treatment and electricity. This leads to gangs and violence, in the third world normally you have to pay to get a good education. With no job, no money you dont get an education, so the cycle begins, people of course want a better life and head for either Europe or the States , but this isnt the 1930s or 1940s people everywhere have had enough they see their hospitals deteriorate , they demand to be taught in their language in our school systems etc etc, the governments dont listen to their people and keep letting in people with no job skills when we already have enough here with no job skills or education, people need to fix their own countries , it takes courage . Imagine if a billion people lived in the US and half below the poverty level , I bet people would start to head back home because the quality of life would probably be the same.
25
I agree with this article. However, I believe immigration ultimately benefits this nation FAR more than this nation giving anything back to the immigrant. This country's birth rate is below replacement value meaning if we do not have immigrants coming here, and a lot of them, then our population is declining. And this means that the available labor in the workforce is declining. Why does this matter you ask? Oh that's right because, the amount of available workers declining means less labor supporting each social security retiree. And what does that mean? Ah, less $$$ to support each social security retiree so ultimately the government has to borrow the $$$ to pay for social security. We need immigrants. They don't commit crime as much as native born people and most importantly they are the ones most likely to start a new business. Everyone in this country should be thanking our lucky stars that people still want to move here.
4
@jcaem007
The problem is that most of our immigrants including the vast majority of those coming through the Southern border are low skill and low education non-English speakers. Most are not able to get the jobs most needed but are stuck in agricultural and service work. The inflows depress wages for American citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder and imposes huge costs for state and local governments.
Bringing in high skill immigrants is a net benefit to the country and should be encouraged.
32
"...at a moment when nearly 71 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes, the most since World War II."
Good God! America should not be required to fix the problems of every country in the world. And Americans who feel that way should not be shrugged off as bigoted.
Remember, President Obama deported 1.18 million people in his first three years in office, compared to less than 800,000 under Trump's first three.
The answer must come from a grand-scale, international effort with billions invested from First World countries into factories, infrastructure and law enforcement in those Central American nations suffering from poverty, crime and lack of opportunity.
22
If we let people wait in the US while their cases are adjudicated what happens if they have a child during that time? That child is a US citizen and a new path to fighting deportation for the parents. That just doesn’t sit right with many people. There should be a waiver of birthright citizenship for people in this situation.
40
Maybe if the United States stopped supporting despotic regimes around the world, fewer people would be trying to leave those countries. The Middle East and the death squad countries of Central America come to mind.
14
What's going to happen if the third of Hondurans who plan to move here show up? And the media is full of pictures of crying toddlers in cute sneakers?
What do we do?
24
You say "The American government generally does not allow innocent people to be imprisoned, raped and shot in the back."
Have you forgotten Abu Graib?
Don't you know about Gitmo?
3
See the word, “generally?”
3
Thank you, Sonia Nazario, for your moving article about how government harms people, especially your family history. By personalizing the issues, your article has much more impact than abstract poli-sci lectures about government.
6
Trouble is feeling guilt doesn’t translate to an open door policy.
17
I think more could have been said about the US’s role in creating the conditions from which people are fleeing. Without that context, this does read to me as creating a 1:1 equivalence between the host country’s apprehensions about being able to absorb absolutely everyone, and the gangs/police/military who are carrying out the actual murders and terror people are running from.
6
@NH: Murder of women is birth control in some of these places.
2
Immigration laws were few to non-existent when the first European settlers (aka invaders to the Native Americans) arrived in North America. Yet we often hear ignorant proclamations "my relatives came here legally!".
6
@Kaari A lot of people came after the first Europeans in the 17th century landed at Plymouth rock.
Some of mine were here before the Revolution. The most recent arrived in 1922--legally.
8
Is the desire to move to another location really a crime because the law say so? Is this morally corrupt?
Not too long ago, it was legal to own slaves, abortions were illegal and women couldn't vote. It was openly acceptable to be biased against race, gender and sexual preference. The world did not end when we made these difficult changes - it got much better for everyone.
It took enormous amount of courage to change those really BAD laws and behaviors. The world is in a desperate need of next MLK and Gandhi to awaken our conscience and fight this hatred and evil to fellow human beings pursuing a better life.
6
@KEVIN Our immigration laws were enacted by a duly elected democratic government, following the will of the people. They are entirely reasonable, and indeed in international terms entirely too lax. The fact that people can't come here just because they feel like it is not unreasonable.
12
@ Kevin.... I like to think I am more compassionate than most, but even I recognize we simply don’t have the resources to accommodate every single desire to immigrate here.
We struggle with the basics for a shameful number of our citizens as is. Our country, as governed now, would rather cut taxes for Billionaires than fix the roads or feed and house the poor.
Im old. Im financially “ok”. I suppose I’ll be dead before the actual apocalypse happens. But... somethings gotta give.
7
@KEVIN
So basically you're arguing that nations and borders are by definition immoral.
You can not have politics without a border. Politics requires a bounded community. I don't want people who think that anyone who "insults" their religion should be stoned to death, folks who think that albinos should be murdered for body parts, people whose culture thinks that 12 is an appropriate age of consent, to be able to move en masse to the United States without permission and vetting.
8
It is not just the asylum system that is bankrupt, it is the legal immig. system that is completely ridiculous.
Under the present immig. system -worsened even more by Democrats enacting laws u
nder Clinton in 1996 - you can never apply for asylum once you are somehow already in the US but past one year after initial arrival, no matter how legit your case might be.
Under the current system, just one permanent alien or citizen can kickstart a never ending cycle of family sponsor petitions under which anyone with no personal merit or suitability can come here as permanent resident, and eventual naturalized citizenship in as little as in 3 years. Under this system, any illiterate can qualify, become citizen with no merit of their own. And whopping 92% perm. residents and eventual citizenship holders are in this category: The only requirement is a free ride thru "family reunion" sponsorship on a silver platter.
On the other hand, if you don't have the luxury of that one "family member sponsorship," then you can't come here even if you are a rocket scientist. While, the celebrated "legal" system allows anyone no matter how "unfit" they might be otherwise, the same system calls for removal of "Americans" who have been here even 30+ years, and are completely adapted and accustomed to American values.
Well! Rosa Park also broke the law. The laws that we abhor today. So America is on the wrong side of history when it comes to Immigration.
7
We already have socialism for people over a certain age — Medicare, social security etc. Folks living off government largess, will always view immigrants as a threat.
People who have stable independent sources of income, or shocking (!) if they are immigrant business owners creating jobs — are going to have a very different take.
The solution is to have more people working their butts off to create jobs for themselves and others, not become parasites to the government and then whittle themselves down to a zero sum view of the world with immigrants as the enemy.
I would rather pay taxes to support immigrants (K-12 education) who contribute to the economy than Medicare/Social Security for those who will never create a job for themselves or others.
1
@TK Most people who never worked don't get Social Security.
6
By the first little lines, I think that she had a very tough life. Her & Her parents. This makes me upset,because we live in a world where no one cares for others but themselves, and that is horrible. She went through a hard childhood, her dad died at 42 of a heart attack. It is horrible to still see how presidents don't care, trump didn't care. I am happy that she went on with a normal life, and i hope it stays that way. I pray for you and your family, and for anyone reading this. Keep fighting dont ever give up.
1
Why do so many people posting assume that the US is some sort of universal magnet? There are plenty of other countries who have millions of migrants going to them. Some are welcoming, some are not. Most are richer than the country the migrant left (duh). The US is not some universal golden ticket and until we stop making everything about us we will never have a rational immigration policy.
6
Could anyone name one of these countries? I can think of Greece.
3
It seems there is no end to the 'things' that are 'going on' here that make me sad … and no end to the 'sadder still' of each 'this one' and the next.
P.S. Hoping that jared kushner might give so much as a moment's mere thought in favor of asylum-seekers will be as useful as expecting his father-in-law -- or stephen miller -- to advocate for open borders.
1
All of us owe a debt of gratitude to our ancestors that immigrated to the United States. Wave after wave of immigrants faced discrimination but persevered and we, their descendants, have benefited handsomely.
Try to put yourself in the place of these new arrivals and have some empathy. It is way too easy to turn our backs and blame them for the circumstances they are seeking to escape. Many are running for their lives.
Like the author's family my Irish ancestors fled oppression and arrived in New York state to begin their lives anew. It is time we payback and welcome the newly oppressed.
163
“Economic” migrants are often fleeing for their lives—from starvation. Our ancestors did the same. Ever hear of the Irish Potato Famine? As I write, a plague of locusts, the worst on record because of climate change, is decimating farmland across Africa. Migration is not a moral deficit on the part of these migrants.
That said, no country can sustain open borders, nor does it seem that even wealthy countries have the resources to ethically, systematically accept and economically integrate these wanderers. Once upon a time, the United Nations, Oxfam and other NGOs poured food, resources and person-power into afflicted regions. Now, near universal nativism driven by fear, anger—and economic necessity render these humanitarian efforts a drop in the bucket.
I fear that despite our medical advances and technological prowess, the world is on the brink of the equivalent of the Black Death from climate change and overpopulation. Add to these human-generated stopgaps like pesticides—not to mention our species’s inherent tribalism. This last in part explains how humans are found everywhere from Cape Town to Patagonia.
16
@Nancy I love my fellow first generation Americans, many Italian-Americans or Irish-Americans whose parents fled here, and how many of them parrot the "well OUR family came here LEGALLY."
No, they didn't.
Many of them did not tell us the whole story, all the trickery and scheming it took for them to get here and stay here. If they did, maybe we'd be more empathetic. Also, most of these groups came to the U.S. when all you needed was some record of voyage in your hand once you arrived, no passports, no citizenship, you could be anybody. "But MY ancestors came here LEGALLY!" - No. 90% chance they did not.
31
@Nancy
1) Not all of us are descended from immigrants.
2) What may have made sense in 1892 doesn't make sense in 2020.
3) Invoking the Holocaust to attempt to shut off debate, as the author does, is a pretty dishonest tactic.
42
No. We wouldn’t.
In this country we have decided that asylum seeking is illegal. And we have decided that people who move for survival without the right pieces of paper are somehow less than. And we have decided that even though this country benefits tremendously from all immigration, we would prioritize having the right pieces of paper over the people themselves.
This is no longer the United States that welcomes those “ yearning to break free” as we grow and prosper together.
This is now the United States of racism, hate, us versus them, every person for him or herself even if it means a slower economy, worse living conditions, and a declining longevity.
706
@Jeff Loehr
Allowing in more refugees and immigrants makes for a stronger middle class, and the children of newcomers tend to care about education and do very well in our public schools. We Americans are at war because war is writ large in too many of our hearts.
When we walk into grocery stores, into the produce section, we should ask ourselves about the many hands who harvested the food we consume and saw that it got to its destination.
The EU is terribly crowded, and home ownership there is impossible for many; certainly our country can take in as many refugees as Germany, which has set a good example in the past several years...We need here in this land those who are still willing to dream the American dream and accomplish it through hard work and scholarship.
54
@Cheesecake
Germany now regrets allowing the entry of a million refugees. Most have failed to assimilate and have become a burden on the German economy.
171
@B. S. B
This tired trope gets stated about every new generation of immigrants. Yawn...fast forward one generation and the kids grow up speaking the national language, embrace a blend of cultures, and take full advantage of their new opportunities.
I have numerous friends who didn’t learn English until attending public school. They are now successful, smart, productive citizens. FYI their parents are too (independent business owners and entrepreneurs who love the US) they just don’t have the command of English that would make people like you who value “assimilation” to recognize it.
24
It's really sad that Sonia and her family have been in danger for a really long time. That does not stop her from doing what she does.
They want to find peace but the always end up in danger. She tries to do what is best for her and her family. She is confident and hard-working."My family has been in danger for nearly 100 years".
That line has me thinking that her life has been really hard for her. But she always finds a way to motivate herself and to not feel bad.
We can and should have an immigration policy that is humane and rational. But we cannot have one that does not control - and by that I mean limit - immigration. We cannot have one that institutes (for all intents and purposes) an open border system. The US is a nation; it is not a colony that allows unrestricted and uncontrolled access across its borders. And lets be clear about one thing: no right exists to enter the US - or remain there- without permission and proper documentation
Perhaps we should consider instituting some (but not all) of the recommendations of the Jordan Commission.
22
To those arguing that our leadership as a place of refuge is a recent development, please don’t forget that many of the first European settlers here were essentially refugees from religious persecution. Later, the founding documents of the United States were deliberately written in such a way that any human on our shores [caveat: not a slave, to our eternal shame] was entitled to the rights we viewed as applying to all.
Today’s behavior would embarrass and shame the people who literally fought for that vision.
3
@Bird lover: The Pilgrims were not persecuted in Amsterdam. They chose to go to the wilderness to keep their children away from the seductions of Dutch secularism.
7
@Steve Bolger absolutely true! But the Huguenots settling here in the latter half of the 1500s had no such experience.
I did not say *all* early European settlers, nor did I say pilgrims. The Spanish came to make money. Nevertheless, we have a strong early history of being a home for refugees.
2
The driving force behind most of the world’s problems: Too...many...people.
Do you dream of living in an overpopulated, increasingly impoverished, environmentally-burdened, politically volatile and culturally-splintered third world country...without ever leaving home? Just wait a few years...we’re almost there.
26
@Susanna: The law of diminution at the margin is universal. The more of anything that is valued at all one can name, the less each unit of it is worth in a market. We can dilute our own value by sheer numbers.
A balance of supply and demand is harmonious.
1
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked…" Barrack Obama, 2005.
"I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in…" Hillary Clinton, 2015.
"If you don't think it's illegal, you are not going to say it, I think it is illegal and wrong, and we have to change it." Chuck Schumer 2009
24
People I know are not upset about the people who want to come to the United States. Let them all come. But they must come according to our laws, as millions have done before them. And please don’t tell me “it’s different now” than before. There’s been political persecution, genocide, and financial oppression throughout history. My grandparents came to escape the oppression in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 1890s. And they came thru Ellis Island, legally with thousands and thousands of others!
The problem now is “the wait time!” Months to years to get processed! My solution...take the billions Trump wants to spend on the border wall and instead increase the number of immigration processing centers, both brick and mortar, and online about 50 fold. Wait times would be cut from months and years to days to weeks!!!
It’s a win-win. The USA gets to know who is here. The immigrants are legal. They won’t have to fear an unexpected knock at the door from Immigration Enforcement. Unscrupulous employers can’t take advantage of immigrants who are here legally!!
But just getting rid of or ignoring our immigration law is wrong. Very wrong.. and everybody knows it!! And if the Democrats push it, many fence sitters will vote for Trump!!! A great loss for all of us!
10
Just a few more months.... Trump is going to lose; possibly badly. Bloomberg will easily show that Trump has no clothes.
"Open Borders" is a republican talking point, not a position that anyone actually holds. Repeating that lie gives credence to it.
8
The U.S. has accepted refugees from persecution and war for a long time. And it still does. All of Ms. Nazario's relatives she mentions in this article were either persecuted or in a country at war or both. They would be accepted today, even in a Trump administration. The problem with the vast majority of refugees to this country currently is that they are neither persecuted nor from a country at war. They are from poor countries, primarily in Mexico and Central and South America. Being poor has never been a qualifier for being a refugee to this country and still isn't. In FY 2018, the U.S. accepted 22,491 refugees. They were from the Congo, Myanmar, Ukraine, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and Ethiopia. Countries where the refugees were persecuted or at war. And, they went through the legal process for asylum. The reason the asylum denial rate jumped to 71% was the influx of asylum seekers from Mexico and Central and South America where there is neither war nor persecution. So they were denied. Again, asylum status for refugees has never, and should never be based on being poor. For those people, the normal, and legal immigration process is always available. According to the American Community Survey, 13.7% of the residents in the U.S. in 2018 were immigrants. The highest in history was 14.8% in 1980. In 1970 it was 4.7%. So, immigration remains open and available, and many go through that process, legally.
21
As long as there have been countries defined by political borders (and likely before then), there have been leaders who exploit ignorance, fear, and hate about those "outsiders." Too much emotion and prejudice clouds reasonable discussion about immigration.
It has become far too easy for politicians to use immigration to distract; to make immigration seem like a much larger "problem" than it is relative to everything else the United States should be about.
No one is going to get everything they want about immigration. How about everyone remind the Senate to go back to where Senators Kennedy and McCain started in their truly bipartisan efforts to improve our immigration system?
But not enough Republican senators have the backbone to resist the nonsense that is all things Trump.
4
Like many Americans (probably most), I believe that we should allow more legal immigrants and more refugees to come to the US than we do now. But also like many Americans (probably most), I believe that we should all but eliminate illegal immigration. Neither party supports any of this. Both parties are intent on using would-be immigrants and refugees as pawns in their nasty political games.
Sadly, we can’t realistically accept all of the people who want to immigrate to the US, and we can’t accept all of the world’s refugees who have fled their homelands. But we can do better. And the US and the world would both be better for it.
9
@Rick: People from around the world seek guest work to earn money to build the community they were born into.
We cannot become the final destination for every one.
Those who can make a difference would leave their country, abandoning with it any chance to better conditions back home.
We cannot be accepting every woman old person and kid that up and shows up.
The few of us still paying taxes keep getting taxed as much as possible so that free things can be given to those who won't work. What's worse is people show up here and immediately get pregnant. Should they not be made to work hard at first to earn a place, before they decided to become nothing more than a stay at home parent, milking the already over taxed social net? why should American born kids and old people go wanting when we seem to be more than ready to give it all for free to people who won't assimilate, won't work, and demand it all just because they showed up?
It's not fair.
30
@AutumnLeaf : Everybody hopes the next generation will achieve their own dreams.
Most Central Americans asylum seekers are fleeing gang violence, domestic violence and poverty. Those phenomena are not grounds to being granted asylum in the United States and never should be.
27
@Rennata Wilson: Banana Republics were offshore slave plantations for the US.
3
@Rennata Wilson
And unfortunately, those same problems. come with them to the US.
11
What is especially troubling about Trump's unlawful refugee "policies," is that so many people fleeing for their lives are doing so as a result of terrible policy decisions by the United States,
including the botched invasion of Afghanistan, the war crime of invading Iraq, the support for the overthrow of an elected moderately progressive president in Honduras https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/07/report-details-how-us-backed-coup-unleashed-wave-abuses-honduras and a lot more
This refusal to acknowledge our moral, as well as legal, responsibilities to treat refugees with compassion whose lives we've helped place in danger, is reprehensible.
@Gary Rose: The present migration of an estimated 900,000 Syrians seems to have been triggered by a deal Trump made with Erdogan a couple of months ago.
6
I’m getting really tired of the Faux News “Democrats want open borders and think anyone who wants to stop immigration is racist” trope.
I live in a “Sanctuary City.” Not a single person I know - and let’s face it, I don’t know many Republicans thanks to geography - wants open borders. Here’s what most of my neighbors would like:
1) an acknowledgement that immigration at our southern border was at net zero BEFORE Trump took office.
2) a deportation policy that focuses first on convicted criminals. You get convicted of a crime here while on a visa? You’re gone. Permanently.
3) enforcement of laws already on the books meant to discourage American individuals and corporations from hiring workers here illegally. It’s disingenuous at best to deport the employees while letting the employers skate. This is the main issue that begets the racism trope: when white company owners are behaving illegally and don’t even get fined while their brown employees get deported it’s hard NOT to see that as racist.
3)a) especially is agrarian areas we need a reasonable migrant worker program. Think Americans want to pick strawberries, apples, tomatoes, etc? See the great Georgia experiment.
4) Remember that this whole conversation is about people who, like every white ancestor we had at some point, want better for their families. Whether we seek opportunity or freedom from extreme violence, we ALL want better lives for our kids.
Rules are necessary but inhumanity toward immigrants is not.
7
@Insane In Seattle Do you know what net zero means? It means as many people were being deported as managed to enter illegally.
7
@Insane In Seattle
Not all of us had white ancestors--at least not that we can claim.
And perhaps the people who want better lives for their kids can fight for that better life in their own country, just like Black Americans had to do.
Our family left Russia in 1925 as refugees. The Soviets had decided that people like my grandfather were disloyal because he had been a landowner prior to the Revolution. He had also fought for the Whites during the civil war there. Sending my family to Siberia was not enough - it had to be death. We left, came to Canada and have contributed to the economy and society ever since. Refugees and immigrants make difficult decisions to leave everything familiar behind in hopes of a better life or in some cases - the hope to be able to live.
6
Tears... We're not nice to the planet, we're not nice to the animals, and we're not nice to each other. We're not a good species...
3
Nazario reminds me of reading Jacobo Timerman's book about Argentina in those times, "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number."
Given how uncaring, lawless, and now unconstrained that Trump is, I'm just surprised that he hasn't unilaterally declared he is tearing up the asylum law.
2
Precisely 0% of people that deploy "The law is the law" as a defense for their anti-immigration views actually hold that view as a principle. The fact that "It's the law" has no bearing on their actual views. Please be sure to make them aware of that fact.
Like everyone, there are laws that they are perfectly fine if they are not maximally enforced, if enforced at all. There are likely laws that they'd prefer didn't exist, and wouldn't care if they're broken. Don't buy this "It's the law" defense.
1
This is another emotional article about the need for some immigration from poorer nations.
But emotions can prevent us from seeing a reality that is becoming harsher with every passing day.
Yes, we need a dispassionate discussion of immigration policy. The two parties essentially prevent such a discussion by excessive partisanship and the push for "solutions" that can fit on a campaign placard.
The real problem is global warming. And its cause, which is population growth.
Over the next several decades part of planet earth will become uninhabitable. Much of the uninhabitable region will be located near the equator, where high density human settlements already occur.
What will happen to Kinshasa, Lagos, Johannesburg, Delhi, Dhaka and Karachi as the planet warms up and dries out? The population of Africa is projected to double again by 2050. The ensuing suffering will make the Second World War look like a comparatively minor event.
And that suffering is facilitated by American missionaries who taught that birth control is sinful and abortion is murder.
But nobody talks about that.
Democrats want to simplify the message. So it's all about racism and bigotry.
It is never mentioned that Americans have a right to be afraid of global warming. And mitigating the suffering requires a different mind set.
Democrats cry "children in cages."
But it is exactly too many children that are the problem. Will we realize that before it is too late?
31
Advocates for strong borders are also strong advocates for policies that address climate disruption, right? After all, as portions of the planet become unable to sustain the population, people will move someplace.
2
Thanks for a great column!!!!!!!!
2
This is a very fine and moving article marred only by the unfortunate repetition of right wing talking points. If one is going to claim Democrats or Liberals are for "open borders," or imply the plans they've offered don't "believe in the rule of law" one should quote or provide links to proof of this. Ms Nazario is quite correct, open borders are an "idiotic" idea. This is why no National Democrat or thinking Liberal I'm aware of has called for such a thing. Please provide examples.
4
@David F
Unfortunately, many (most) of the current candidates for Democratic Party presidential nomination do *effectively* espouse an open borders program even if they won't call it that publicly.
Denying it doesn't make it any less true. I would welcome a candidate who would say straight up that no, we're not going to accept anyone making fake asylum claims. No, we are going to deport people in the US illegally regardless of how long they've been here. Yes, we will reform immigration laws to favor high education and high skill people.
This one argument got Trump a lot of votes in 2016. A knee jerk refusal to acknowledge their validity will give him a hole lot more in 2020.
4
"‘What Part of Illegal Don’t You Understand?’
I don't understand the illegal part.
6
" New quotas kept out “undesirables” — Jews, Asians, Africans." isn't true.
Although Asians, Africans weren't allowed - at all, the law didn't mention Jews.
The quotas were per country (except of course Asians, Africans).
4
@Mark Mazur
Per historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078:
"In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000. This table shows the annual immigration quotas under the 1924 Immigration Act."
The table shows the number of immigrants allowed per country. The law didn't mention Jews but I suspect they would have been considered Eastern European.
My father applied for immigration visas in 1952. It took 10 for the visas for my family to come thru. Portugal was only allowed 503 visas per year under the 1924 law. Per a letter my father got from the US Embassy, we only got our visas in 1962 because a special law was passed that year which allowed us to come on a non-quota visa. If not for this law, we might still be waiting.
1
Our current immigration policies have made us ugly Americans. If you think this is too strong just think about the numbers of people willing to support a lawless, immoral, vulgar man for president just because the economy is doing well. The love of money will have horrible consequences for this country!
6
Not to mention, they claim to be in love with the economy when in fact the economy has slowed from the previous administration and has not achieved any of the metrics at comparable rates. So even if the economy was an excuse to deny people's humanity, which it is not, the economy is no better than it was in the previous administration.
4
This is an extraordinary article that reminds us all of man's inhumanity to man. Reading it, I couldn't help thinking how, for the last 3 years, I have been telling my friends this country is looking more like Argentina every day. The country of the rule of law par excellence; the US, is also the same country that was behind the crimes against humanity committed in Argentina Sonia Nazario describes. It is the reason why the US opted against World Court membership because Henry Kissinger would have been tried for those crimes against humanity! During the Cold War, the CIA's Operation Condor was designed to train the Argentinean, Chilean, Brazilian and Bolivian armies in counter insurgency army and police tactics; the very tactics that were behind the kidnapping, torture and rape of Ms. Nazario's sister and the disappearing of thousands of others. Prior to this, the OSS, then CIA, facilitated the escape of Nazi criminals to Argentina as they deemed them an asset in fighting Marxism. So can't happen in America, eh? Think again! Accordingly, we need to elect leaders with a conscience. This does not imply a wide opening of our borders (nobody advocates this), but a comprehensive immigration policy like Canada's (focus on skills); one that gives us real melting pot diversity, and yes, that means not having 3/4 of immigration coming from Latin American. And to stop endless refugee caravans, a good strategy might be to help countries develop their economies. Imagine that! Genius!
7
@Viking 1
I agree with you except for a couple of things:
1. Proximity will always be a factor in immigration. And, historically, much of our country used to be Mexican territory. Central American refugees, for many reasons, are part of the fabric of our country.
2. American industries actually have a need for untrained laborers, and US citizens are not taking these jobs. This need should be fairly accommodated by revised immigration laws that includes a workable path towards citizenship.
3
@Chickpea
"US citizens are not taking these jobs"
They aren't taking the jobs now because they pay so little. These positions (possibly excepting agricultural work) used to be filled by US citizens at reasonably good wages.
7
Thank you so much for refuting a comment which is so often made. As you say, with the possible exception of some agricultural jobs, often filled by the braceros programs, all of these “menial” jobs in construction, hospitality, factory work, etc., were done by native Americans, and they should be again. Laws penalizing employers, including homeowners, who hire illegal labor should be draconian and enforced. I have worked as a waiter and on construction, as a taxi driver, and on and on. Many other native Americans, white as well as African-Americans, have done the same. Employers who cheat should have their licenses taken from them. Homeowners who hire illegal domestic workers should suffer heavy fines.
5
Unless you're a Native American, everyone's family was once immigrants or refugees. What part of that do you not understand?
7
It’s not pleasant to see that a lot of Americans are even less rational and just as crazily racist about refugees and immigration as they are about, say, Ebola or the latest coronavirus.
3
How does it make sense that the USA now denies asylum to persecuted individuals/families, and allows a greedy, lying, narcissistic, constitutionally-ignorant person to be president, and give government jobs to his family members?
8
I remember Ms. Nazario wearing the glasses shown in that photo!
Contemporaneously, I remember being impressed with her passion for social justice but not understanding anything but the most superficial aspects of her story or what motivated her so strongly. Teen males are not exactly renowned for their listening skills, lol.
Oddly enough, at that point I didn't understand my own family's story either, which involved going into hiding to flee Russian soldiers, then living one family to a room at a refugee camp in Germany, before immigrating to the US under the sponsorship of a religious organization.
It wouldn't surprise me if a very large percentage of historical immigration could be classified as "refugee experiences" in at least some respects.
We should celebrate this path, not condemn it.
2
@kilndown flimwell What happened to staying and trying to alter the political course of your nation? Sort of like 1776. The refugees of the time (loyalists) headed to Canada.
6
@R consider the situation: stay and die in a totalitarian regime with no democratic opportunity, or leave. Do you think that when the pools of innocent blood get deep enough that those in power will relent? is that what you mean by trying to alter the political course of a nation? Doesn't seem very realistic or helpful.
@kilndown flimwell Who defines democratic opportunity? Your assumption is it is certain failure to remain with your besieged nation in duress. Never the case. History is replete with examples of eventual success.
A beautifully written piece, unusual for its understanding of nuance and perspective, qualities generally absent from any "discussion" of immigration. Thinking takes work. Nuance, perspective, and complexity are clearly out of fashion as intellectual activities, so Twentieth Century (to paraphrase Roger Cohen.) It is so much easier to deal with things through simplistic bumpersticker certainties.
Of course, when it comes to a solution, the devil is in the details, as there is no simple solution to the problem. To the contrary, "solution" and "problem" are in and of themselves relative and culturally defined at any given moment. All we can do, but what we must do, is muddle on, doing so with humility, while keeping our eye and efforts on the prize yet understanding compassionately, even while not accepting, that others see a different prize.
One significant item likely lost in reading the piece: "My mother, Clara Aberbach, was 9 when she left Chodorow, Poland, now part of Ukraine." Left Poland, now part of Ukraine. We, especially younger folks, tend to think of borders as certainties (unless you simply don't believe in them.) In reality, as the New York Times History Atlas so excellently demonstrates, they are human creations which, other than God, are what we most often fight and kill each other about.
5
What an amazing story! This will be a required reading in my immigration class. This op-ed focuses our attention on U.S. refugee policies that are different and distinct from our immigration policies. While much of our immigration policies are debated on the economic benefit and cost basis, our refugee policies must be centered on individual stories of persecution, dislocation, and being targets of some powerful entity be they agents of the government or gangsters seeking vengeance. The big question for our country when it comes to refugee policies is, "Is our government humane and righteous enough to listen to individual stories of persecution?" One of the most insidious things Donald Trump has done is to appeal to the prejudices of Americans to squeeze out our capacity for treating refugees as individual human beings. As Sonia Nazario points out, this goes against the very foundation of refugee laws that view refugees as individual humans before any other status. I would add that Trump's policy violates crucial American values of individual rights and legal due process. The first step in having a sane and humane refugee and immigration policies is to reject Trump's impulse to view people through labels of nations, regions, and religions but view them as full human beings with all of their complexities.
3
The author's mention of the plight of the would-be migrants from Central America points to one of the root causes of the migration crisis: these countries have suffered under governments at best inept and often criminal. This has lasted for more than one hundred years, from the time of United Fruit's first "Banana Republic" to the present when the elected president of Honduras was ousted by a military coup in 2014, under the approving watch of the Obama administration. The mess that comprises the governments of these countries may be traceable, ultimately, to their lack of resources, but the history of U.S. meddling has exacerbated their problems to crisis levels.
3
Those familiar with US foreign policy from the 50s up to today know that the US is shutting its doors on people who need to escape desperate situations. It is not for economic reasons that these people flee; it is because those countries have become unliveable as a result of US meddling in the governments of these countries, often deposing democratically elected leaders that they disapproved of because of their Socialist leanings, and then setting up and supporting ruthless dictators who favor US interests and politics. For example, there was Chile, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, and many more. Americans who want to bar refugees have conveniently forget that these people are fleeing intolerable conditions largely caused by US policies. What could be more horrible that bringing about the destruction of a country through interference and then shutting out the people whose lives have been destroyed as a result of that! One thing I notice about a lot of American commenters is that they have very selective memories, and little knowledge of the world outside their borders.
2
The writer effectively makes an impassioned plea, and her story is very interesting. The problem with it -- as a template for supposedly solving the GLOBAL migration problem -- is that there are far too many citizens of the world justly needing refuge from despicable conditions of life that there is simply no way that the U.S. can absorb them all. This is particularly true in some prohibitively expensive-to-live states such as CA, which has much more of its share of BOTH legal and illegal immigrants than what the state can handle, but it's true in many other states as well.
There are the logistics of getting settled, finding housing and jobs, transitioning to different laws and language, which would entail a learning curve EVEN IF all of the refugees had always been self-sustaining, with advanced skills and perhaps cash as well. But consider what percentage of those true refugees will be in need of social services of many kinds, and the practical realities are overwhelming.
The United States of America is not merely a giant Social Services Agency with unlimited cash to distribute to those living in so many dysfunctional governments that are corrupt, decidedly pre-21st century in competency, and lacking in basic governing, educating, civil engineering, etc. infrastructure. That is true EVEN IF the country manages to "take care of its own [residents]."
Do the math, people.
26
Thank you! I have explained the difference between asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants over and over. Many people don’t know the difference. And thank you for the info about the reform bill.
1
@Lawyermom When people claim asylum after being caught sneaking over the border, when they claim asylum after passing through multiple safe countries, and when they stay in the country illegally after losing their asylum hearings, then people will be very suspect of "asylum seekers".
12
Our misty eyed asylum and immigration laws are throwbacks to a long ago time that has disappeared. The vast majority of people classified as immigrants or refugees today are the products of countries that by and large have over populated themselves out of any chance of economic or social stability so that they are economic and climate refugees. Mexico, Africa and Central America are prime examples. The US by nature of our wasteful lifestyle is a major contributor to climate change and environmental problems. Our current over population is a major contributor of this. We should be reducing our population and moving to a sustainable economy not adding to it and making the planets problems worse. We can help other nations do the same. To continue to move them here by the millions, as we have done for the last 50 years, will serve to accelerate climate change and the conditions that are making all of the planets problems worse and reduce the US to the same over crowding mess that most of the planet finds itself in currently. The fact that the human race adds >80 million more people every year shows that shifting this burden to the west will never solve the problem. The supply is literally limitless. unless we reduce our population and help them do the same we will all go down in an environmental death spiral.
45
@AT
Thank you.
10
@AT: Evidently there are many people who believe that God will smash the Earth with another asteroid if too few people pray.
And yet somehow, you cheer on the very people who attack Planned Parenthood, chop family planning programs around the world, and scream about the foreign aid and environmental legislation that works on our probs with pollution and global warming.
Gee, I wonder why that is?
3
It should be noted, as this Viewpoint is being published, Britain announced a plan for reduction of immigration as it attempts to do a "fundamental overhaul of immigration laws". Most likely it will continue the decrease, already having occurred since Brexit. And this is now the standard practice throughout the Western world. America, in most cases, will always be the first choice of asylum. Migrants habitually travel through secure nations, open to asylum, to arrive at our borders. In light of the changing dynamic, the United States MUST continue the process of strict adherence to statutory immigration law. To do otherwise eventually will create military difficulties with our southern neighbor-i.e. Mexico.
17
This article, like most from pro-immigration activists, does nothing to help solve the problem, but only muddies the waters and seems to make the case for Open Borders.
The author sensibly observes that "We don’t have to choose between letting everyone in and no one in." Almost all Americans agree; we believe that immigration is a good thing; but it must be regulated.
Where the author goes wrong is, like almost all other immigration activists, in making no distinction between legal and illegal immigration. This is despite the fact that "illegal" appears in the title. We already have a system to allow immigration. If we only followed it, we would not have this crisis.
Most Americans are strongly against illegal immigration. We don't believe that those who are simply clever or athletic enough to sneak, bribe, or swim their way into the US should be allowed to stay. In contrast, activists certainly give the impression that they want no penalty for illegal immigration, but would rather reward it with free health care. Hence the "Open Borders" accusation justifiably lobbed at leading pro-immigration Dems.
As long as immigration activists support illegal immigration, the system will get no better. Unfortunately, Americans are so fed up that they may reward Trump with another 4 years for at least doing something to slow the huge tide.
47
@Unconventional Liberal: One can be in denial of population pressures on ecosystems by calling for open borders, or for making contraception expensive and abortion unavailable. What's the difference?
@Unconventional Liberal No, Ms. Nazario's essay was balanced: she illustrated the sorts of needs people have, as refugees, to emigrate to places like America, Canada and parts of Europe.
But she specifically emphasizes that the sloppy division between legal and illegal immigration needs to be noted and fixed. All countries have immigration laws. They need to be enforced fairly, with attention to international policies on refugees who truly need to share with us.
1
Nothing last forever. Not even the 50 years of "immigration and asylum policy you mentioned.
But in the 50 years, the world and the global economy has changed remarkable by. As such, a nations policy must change accordingly to survive. Though it sounds nice and magnanimous to get the plight of some poor countries, the solution is NOT to run but stay home and make it better.
As a Descendant of enslaved Africans here in America, we could have left the now great nation during our travails inclusive of the enslavement period and Jim Crow to name two. We did not run. Our efforts made it so that America is a magnet for life betterment to many others, legal and illegal.
There are many people like me who engender these sentiments. Respect that.
11
This personal narrative was extremely compelling and I thank you for sharing it. I still have hope that we might be able to appeal to a kernel of empathy in the hardline anti-immigrationersby sharing stories like yours.
However, I think it is another false equivalency to state, "Then, as now, many on both the right and the left have argued that the choice Americans face on immigration and asylum is between zero tolerance and opening the floodgates. "
Democratic leaders are not advocating "open borders." "Open Borders" is a term used almost exclusively used by those opposed to legal and illegal immigration from countries not considered desirable. We need to immediately put an end to attributing that right-wing rejoinder to an actual policy advocated by Democrats. It is nothing more than a trope used to describe people who care about asylum seekers, refugees, and hardworking immigrants who are willing to risk everything they know to seek a better life for themselves and their children.
2
This is the most balanced and fair analysis of immigration I have read since the 90’s, when Americans were not yet suffering from such extreme wealth and income disparities and our working class had not yet been decimated by low-wage global competition. Has anyone noticed how rational and respectful conversation about immigration policies is nonexistent and has been for years? Just the overwhelming number of worldwide refugees means that no moderate policy will be acceptable to the most sympathetic, and not enough Americans still view sympathy as a political virtue.
3
We have so many failing towns and cities in the US that would benefit enormously by an influx of striving immigrants. I’ve read comments here that claim, derogatorily, that most of our southern immigrants are just seeking economic opportunity. Why not place these seekers in the towns and cities that so desperately need them? The ripple effect of growth would be tremendous.
3
This article should be required reading for every voter!
So an emotional version of Senor Friedman's build a high wall with a big gate. That's not what most American's actually want. Most seem to know that the conditions in much of this planet are only getting worse, due mainly to overpopulation and resource exhaustion. These aren't classic refugees that our systems (post WWII) were constructed to handle. They are economic and climate change migrants, though certainly political instability and violence are fed by the underlying causes. A grand deal that would actually work would involve a bracero program, coupled with incentives for Americans to have less children and asylum seeking immigrants, none. The world has changed and so to must we.
28
From 1620 to 2020, immigration of non-northern Atlantic European peoples have created a fear that they would threaten the cultural and political hegemony of the descendants of the original immigrants of British and Scots Anglo-Saxon Christian origin.
Immigration has always been transactional. America needed population to fill an immense continent. It need immigrant workers and,yes, soldiers to defend its interests.
I'm not seeing how the author's experience translates to the current situation - at all. Her father immigrated (legally) to the US, likely on a visa for highly skilled immigrants. If I'm not mistaken, that type of immigration is still allowed and even encouraged.
Her mother then made the error - following her father's death, to ABANDON the U.S. - which at that time was certainly, hands down, the greatest country on earth and return to Argentina. She then reversed her decision and compounded this mess by allowing her teen age daughter to stay in Argentina at risk.
This isn't about bad parenting - it's about the US' ability to manage its borders.
42
Thank you. I am an attorney who has been doing pro bono asylum work since 2017. I was new to immigration law, and I have been astonished by the lack of due process afforded to asylum seekers. The laws and rules are complicated even for an attorney with decades of litigation experience. We expect poorly educated people who don't speak the language to negotiate this Kafkaesque experience. My clients have described horrific experiences in other countries, and out system traumatizes them again.
8
Some very good points here, but still doesn't address a major issue--how many people is the right number for the US?
Most people don't know what our current population is, let alone think about what it should be.
But they do feel that we now have too many--hence the power they give this disastrous president.
The legislation guaranteeing so many Central Americans is a terrible idea--we cannot save the world either through military action or taking in too many people from countries that have overbred their range!
20
Well, let's see...
1. "It’s dead winter, and their only shelter is often a few taped-together trash bags." So are American homeless people. A lot of them Veterans.
2. "Ten days to find a lawyer, request documents from officials in another country and line up expert witnesses. It’s a sham." It's the same sham for American citizens who cannot afford private attorneys and have to rely on over-worked and under-prepared public defenders who only get to spend less than an hour with them before going to court.
3. "We cannot take in everyone, so we need to prioritize those fleeing harm." There are lots of America citizens in our cities who are afraid of the gang violence there. Where can they go?
4. "The American government generally does not allow innocent people to be imprisoned, raped, and shot in the back"
Really? Tell that to the mass-incarcerated-later-exonerated
American citizens and the families of all the innocent black people shot by the police.
Callus? Probably. True? Completely.
21
The costs of irrational and cruel immigration policies to those fleeing violence and terror cannot be measured.
But there is another cost, this one to our country. Long after the corruption of the Trump regime is over, our country will be remembered for taking children from their families, many never to be reunited, and putting them into cages.
Children. Look at you children, hold your grandchild, and really think about what this means. Children.
The entire horror story of these camps, largely still operating in secret, will filter out over the next century, and if history is at all prophecy, these human rights abuses will be the stain our country bears moving forward. They will define our country as surely as the gas chambers defined Germany in the last century.
For this reason, we must never forget. And unless we act to bring people like Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, Kirstjen Nielsen, and so many others, to justice, that stain will poison everything our country touches.
2
Let the US offer each refugee 10 acres and $20,000 for a homestead in Alaska.
The reality is that there many people in this country illegally. They have broken the law.
Legality is determined by the ruling regime. It was illegal for Jews to operate shops in 1929 Germany. It was illegal for women to open a bank account without their husbands’ permission in the 1950s. Mixed marriage was illegal until Loving. It was illegal for Asians to buy property in California until the mid 20th century.
Asylum, however, is legal. It is illegal to turn immigrants seeking it away. Breaking an illegal law is a legal double negative. Do the math. Laws are weapons used in wars against people with less power.
4
Wonderful personal and clear policy article, thank you Sonia. And US is the country while nascent that exterminated and tried to "reeducate" its native tribes from whom they stole the land https://www.theedadvocate.org/sobering-history-native-american-education-19th-century/
Imported Chinese to build its railroads like slaves then forbade them to migrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chinese_sentiment_in_the_United_States
Enlightenment values of Jefferson and Franklin are those we must update, take out the sexism/racism present there really just as a part of their time, make current and rebuild our country.
1
Parts of Baltimore are as dangerous as El Salvador or other Central American countries. Do you really think that France or Germany would admit someone from Baltimore as a “refugee” from violence? If Mexico is so dangerous why have Mexicans stopped trying to cross the border?
36
The President of the United States:
"It doesn't matter."
That new hydroelectric dam in Sudan is about to collide with Egypt's explosive population growth. It won't be pretty. The new dam in Thailand will kill the Mekong delta.
Why do we have to burn up the planet now?
5
For those with such disdain for the great unwashed:
When are you going to go after the employers (our president is one of them) who hire them?
Therein lies the problem. You won’t. It’s all part of the lie. This nation was built on a foundation of slavery and continues to run on the backs of immigrants. Free labor turned to criminally cheap labor — it’s the American way. Maybe that’s what is meant MAGA? Great, as in free labor great?
3
I'm afraid the America you speak of disappeared some time ago. Now, our military and intelligence services torture and nothing happens (i.e., Iraq), the president sends troops to fight wars without the authorization of Congress (Vietnam, Afghanistan), the nation ignores the very human rights treaties and covenants it once proposed (The Geneva Conventions, The international treaties against torture; the treaties concerning refugees and asylum seekers). Also, a plurality of Americans are ignorant, racist bigots who hate you and any other immigrant, led by a president who is an ignorant, racist bigot. OK, maybe immigrants from Norway would be OK. Not a pretty picture.
3
What part of illegal do I not understand?
For 400,000 years of human history people have been migrating to improve their lives, Geopolitical nation states have been around for about 400 years (since 30 years war).
The Earth is everyone’s birthright , it does not belong to any specific group because they mark a line in the dirt and then declare the line gives them the right to kill others .
Here in the USA, 400 years ago a bunch of white European swere told by their god to go to get in a boat , go across the water to the promised land, there might be people there but they are just savages—the proof of which was they defended their familes— its ok to kill them, and they killed 85% of them, and its ok to steal their land.
Global business and hitech have the oppportunity to create a global economy with more jobs, lower prices and increased quality of products but as long as nation states with demagogue political decision makers (not leaders) with their idealogies of national sovereignty, patriotism and mercantilism, the migration situation is going to get a lot worse. with a lot more innocent dead bodies.
People all over the world born into poverty see the problem as the bad luck of where they were born and the answer to their dreams of better a life is, as has been for 400,000 years, to migrate.
Political leaders all over the world have to step up to the plate, resist the hate preached by demogagues and work out this problem
3
The most recent Democratic immigration reform bill, the New Way Forward Act, was referred to subcommittee on Jan 30.
Among other things, it would repeal the laws that make it a crime to enter the US illegally or a crime to reenter after being deported.
It would create a statute of limitations on initiating removal proceedings 5 years after someone became deportable--and that includes deportation for crimes. It would apply retroactively.
It would repeal the law requiring mandatory detention for those deportable for committing specific crimes.
It would amend the definition of "aggravated felony" to apply only to those with a prison sentence of 5 years or more.
It would allow those deported after 1996 to return--at taxpayer expense--for new hearings if they would not have been deported under the new laws being recommended.
This plan will re-elect Trump.
35
Thank you for sharing your brutally honest thoughts on this issue. I really appreciate the approach, and pointing out that there is middle ground between the two sides that can be achieved.
3
“ Conservatives may not like this, but we have to let through people who say they are afraid. ”
No, we don’t. This is a policy choice and given the huge wave of climate refugees in the coming decades this loophole is ripe for abuse. America at 330,000,000 people is full. We don’t have enough housing, transportation infrastructure or natural resources to add to the current population. And for the sake of our nation’s carbon footprint, we need less people overtime than more.
28
The 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is a signatory, actually does require this. Under the US Constitution, these sorts of international agreements are binding and can’t be ignored. The US could choose to leave the Convention, but until and unless it does, the Convention is as binding as our Constitution.
1
@JDK
Allowing entry to people who say they are afraid is not a “policy choice”. It’s actually the law. And this law defines a process that includes the right to seek asylum after entry without documentation.
https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/immigration-law-the-rules-and-procedure-for-asylum-seekers
So, we can decide to adhere to our own laws, or we can continue to allow the Trump Administration to ignore the law, or we can change the law. Those are our options.
The beginning for rethinking our immigration laws, The Refugee Protection Act of 2016, sits frozen in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Some of us preferred living in a country where laws were usually followed. But clearly, many advocates for Trump, do not.
1
Greece is at the forefront of a surge in asylum seekers arriving on their islands. By comparison the country is upholding its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The problem? The influx of migrants/asylum seekers is unsustainable. Read the Greek news which documents the affect this has had on the Greek population.
20
She states that the Trump administration actions with regard to asylum "break our own laws and treaty commitments, which say we will take people in, give them a fair court hearing and not return them to harm." "Not return them to harm" is extremely misleading, and we can assume she knows it.
She links to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which defines a refugee as: "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion." The best argument that cam be made, and that immigration lawyers have been trying to make, is to shove the "not return them to harm" round peg into the "particular social group" square hole.
Maybe the standard should be "not return them to harm." I wonder if that is too broad to be practical, but there's a strong argument for it. But a fair reading is that it isn't what it says now
So to say that denying asylum to those who fear harm breaks our laws and treaty commitments is simply false. She's claiming an "is" argument when the best she has is what I personally think is a strong "should" argument.
The problem with doing so is it damages the credibility of an otherwise good argument and prevents constructive dialogue on an important issue.
5
I seem to be one of the few Americans who don't have a strong opinion on immigration. I am confused by something Ms. Nazario writes. She says the majority of asylum seekers who are refused asylum do not leave the country. I swear I've read countless times that it was okay to let people seeking asylum to stay here and out of detention because few absconded if they were denied entry. What am I missing? Also, how can one easily track down the people who stay illegally? It would seem to be difficult to me.
5
@Keitr
Agreed. Numbers, percentages, and ratios reduce confusion. In this case the percentage of seekers being refused asylum who do not leave the country would have improved the clarity of the story. However, a simple google search does not reveal the answer.
The source most likely to be able to provide that statistic is the US government Department of Homeland Security. However, they seem to be unable to track even parents and children whom they have taken into custody and reunite them later. So we are reduced to using the terms most, many, some, a few, etc. The term selected is influenced by the bias of the storyteller.
2
What a beautiful and yet disturbing story here!
The only way that we're going to see stability in our handling of asylum seekers and migrants to this country is to replace the one who heads an administration that has been practicing inhumane policies.
Yes, former president Obama's record of deportations of those who entered this nation illegally was certainly deeply troubling, and, with stronger political pressure, we might have seen rectification there.
But president Trump has created a Draconian system that literally endangers and traumatizes innocent peoples' lives, a violation of everything we stand for in this country.
Please, think about this horrendous situation that has evolved under the Trump administration when you vote in November.
2
Excellent discussion. In my experience, there are not many people around here who are either closed border or no border at all. People around here, the ones I talk to, want a middle ground. That could be defined many ways, but not by either extreme.
The economic problems and domestic violence driving people north toward the US are in far too large a part caused by US policy choices over many years. Not caused by Trump, but rather caused by Nixon/Kissinger onward.
In fact, Gen. Smedley Butler wrote back then that it was all already true by the 1930's; he won the Medal of Honor twice fighting wars right there in Central America, and ended up running the Marine Corps, so he ought to be considered an honorable expert.
Why don't they stop in the first place of safety on the way north? There isn't one. Stopping in cartel country is not stopping in safety. Stopping in a different right wing mini-state dictatorship is not safety.
Should we just take in the whole population of Central America, and maybe more places too? No. But to avoid that, we'd have to stop making the places so bad. Examples are Honduras ruined by Sec of State Hillary's program of regime change, and Venezuela ruined by first Hillary's and then Trump's failures of regime change, and Ecuador recently ruined after a long campaign to destroy it going back several Administrations, and El Salvador still awash in the murders of Reagan's war there.
Stop doing that, and the migrant problem will improve.
2
Thank you Ms. Nazario.
Rational, understandable, thoughtful.
The rule of law here, in the US, is being dismantled.
We are heading into unchartered waters.
Unfortunately, as the piece point out, many other countries have already sailed these waters. To a disastrous end.
Woefully, it appears as though many are lacking the foresight to realize where we are headed.
6
My late mother was one of about 1,000 German Jewish children who escaped to the U.S. before the war. She was an 11 year old "unaccompanied minor." Her parents, sister and brother were unable to leave, and only her sister survived. Mom was placed with a foster family, graduated from high school in 1945, was naturalized in 1947, and received her BA in 1948.
What roiled Stephen Miller's mind and deprived him of empathy for refugees?
The birthrate in the United States is below the replacement rate. Without immigrants, the United States will come to resemble Japan, where the sales of adult diapers outnumber the sales of baby diapers. Without immigrants, who will pay pay the payroll taxes to support Social Security as the bolus of baby boomers like me retire?
6
If legal consistency is the goal, shouldn't we take anyone who has broken any law and deport and/or imprison them? WE could start with Donald Trump and work our way down to parking violations. After all, "illegal" means "illegal" does it not?
3
Fantastic essay. The reality is that most Americans vote based on fear and false information about immigration. I agree that we need actual immigration law but we need to follow the current law about asylum seekers. We also need to allow Dreamers to remain. The current system, driven by Trump's fearmongering, is pure insanity and the so-called Christians that support Trump should be ashamed of his beliefs and policies.
4
What if maybe all those places people are fleeing from just got it together. We're all so concerned these days about Trump's supposed corruption but then give a free pass to every Narco Banana Republic and just assume that it's now our problem and our responsibility to sort out their fallout. But of course we can't do anything to try and help change that part of the equation lest we be declared guilty of foreign interference. By all indications this country is trying to make an attempt to address a bad global situation regardless if imperfect. It hardly helps though when the two sides responsible won't speak to each other because their petty political feelings supersede minor things like life and death.
10
Neither Trump nor his administrations is committed to the rule of law. There are no objective standards for Trump; it’s all personal. I therefore find it odd that Trump supporters talk about the rule of law as if they value it, (often in the context of criticizing behavior they don’t like e.g. those illegal immigrants are law breakers) yet remain complacent while he is trashing it.
2
I loathe Trump, but on immigration I agree with him. We let in over 1 million legal immigrants each and every year. We simply cannot let in the millions (billions?) who want to come here. They need to stay and fix their own countries (and we can help with that).
41
@Sue, just imagine if Democrats had put their money where their mouth was and for the last three years and devoted the same energy and capital to sane and ethical immigration reform as they did to tying and burning Trump at the stake and impeaching him.
14
There are two parts to this issue. 1) How should the US handle refugees? 2) How should the US handle people who want to immigrate but are not refugees? The author of this essay is focused on the first question and on this question the 1951 Refugee Convention is very clear. The US—and every other signatory—is required to shelter people who meet the legal definition of refugee under the Convention.
That doesn’t mean we need to open our borders to everyone, but I don’t know anyone who is actually advocating for that.
The real fact is that we have a flood of illegal immigrants because the Republicans refuse to take any action against the Companies that knowingly hire them. The Republicans refuse to make the E-Verify identification program mandatory because then their business donors would have to raise wages and provide benefits to American citizens in order to get employees.
16
@Jeff and maybe even hire from the pool of educated women who have been laid off well before retirement, and now work at jobs that don't require an education.
3
Maggie, you are one of the few who understand the root of this problem. As you are aware, up until the 1970’s, the United States had achieved a replacement birth rate among the native born population. The more than doubling of our population has been driven by immigration, and was a result of these changes in the law. Today, birth citizenship plus chain migration make any attempts to halt population growth almost impossible.
3
We can’t be a great country and a cruel country at the same time.
3
@MK Sutherland
Pragmatism leads to Greatness......
2
The bigotry and xenophobia coursing through the letters in response to this article are evidence of American decadence and decline. Immigration is the greatest contributor to economic growth and renewal. As for those who argue the other do not share our values nor our ways, take one look at the President and his family and his circle to experience the rife corruption of America's elites, particularly those living on inherited wealth and privilege. If you really want to witness hard work, self sufficiency, investment in children, active assimilation and belief in G*d, go to America's immigrant communities. Because there it is not all talk and hypocrisy.
5
Regardless of the political rhetoric or the call for sympathy, the truth is most immigrants, legal or illegal, only want to come to this country, or Europe, to make money. Not because they share our values and love our citizens, or our country. I have been told many times by many immigrants in confidence. As soon as they retire, they have told me, they will go back to their country. Many send money back to their country constantly.
25
I know some immigrants who plan to go back to their country of origin when they retire, but many more who intend to stay here. I’m curious, though. When your ancestors immigrated, why did they come to the US? My father definitely came here to build a new life for himself after WWII, while my mother came for a year to have an adventure, but then met and fell in love with my father. They both became proud citizens, but their original reasons for coming here don’t sound like t Hf et meet your standards.
My father, the newly-married owner of a candy store in his hometown of Gleiwitz, Germany (now Gliwice, Poland) was arrested by the Nazis on Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938) and spent a month in the Buchenwald Camp, before my very pretty mother was able to bribe him out.
They were among the last Jews able to get out of Germany.
They made their way to England, to Cuba, to New York, and then back to Cuba and New York before being able to gain permanent residence here.
My mother’s elderly parents and younger brother perished in Auschwitz, after spending about two years at the terrible Gurs and Drancy camps in France before being shipped to Auschwitz on cattle cars.
They were Orthodox in practice, and whatever hope and solace they would have been able to obtain would have had to come through prayer, there being no other help available to them.
My father had seven relatives -- including his parents -- on board the German ocean liner St. Louis that is reference in this article. My grandparents were subsequently lucky enough to get to England, but three of the others perished after they were denied help by President Roosevelt and were returned to Holland and captured by the Nazis.
My father loved everything about Germany. The books, the music, the art, the science, the cooking, the education and apprentice systems, the old buildings.
He had a very simple explanation for what had happened.
He always said Hitler made the people crazy.
He believed it could happen here.
954
@A. Stanton Terrifying what is going on now. My in-laws were German Jewish refugees - FIL's family got out early but my MIL escaped through a fluke. While wishing her good friend safe travels on a passenger ship in Hamburg - the friend had a sponsor. The sponsor asked when my MIL would be leaving. She said she couldn't. He said, "You must and I will help you." He did and she came to NYC months later. After that she managed to sponsor her sister to leave Germany as well - Their parents perished in the camps.
71
@A. Stanton I agree with your grandfather that Hitler, using old prejudices and resentments as vehicles for his own destructive hatred, made the people crazy. The same thing is happening today. Trump is making Americans crazy. The true believers are crazily extracting revenge for not getting ahead in the modern world, and the rest of us are suffering from anxiety from hearing so much openly expressed rage and hatred from the President and fearing for the future of the Republic and our democracy.
125
Terrific testimonial, A. Stanton.
Civilization is always one unhinged lunatic demagogic narcissist away from disintegrating into adulterated evil.
Wake up, America.
EJECT our Mad Hatter and all of his aiders and abettors.
November 3 2020
153
Thank you for this heart-rending report, including the reminder of the USA's historical transgressions against asylum seekers. I pray for improvement, pray that our country will get back on track with our potential to value law *and* humanity and compassion.
2
If Argentina persecuted Jews today, Argentine Jews would be eligible for asylum in the United States. America grants asylum to those who can prove they are persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. The United States has admitted about 76,200 refugees so far under the Trump administration. It granted 38,687 asylum in 2018, the most recent years for which statistics are available.
Applying for asylum at the U.S. border is difficult today because millions of migrants who know they don’t qualify for asylum have clogged the system. They crossed the border illegally even though they knew their asylum applications would be rejected because they expected to be allowed to remain in the United States for years while their applications were being process. Now that applicants are made to wait in Mexico while their applications are being processed, those not eligible for asylum will stopped coming. Soon, only applicants who are eligible will apply and the asylum process will work smoothl
27
Translation: after we listen to the shabby likes of Stephen Miller, stop taking in refugees, and chop immigration drastically, the whole process of getting refugee status or immigrating will become far, far simpler and easier. And I have a whole passel of fibs, evasions, distortions and leaps of logic to prove it.
6
@Robert
We haven’t stop taking refugees. Immigration is near all-time highs under the Trump administration. We take in more than one million legal immigrant per year. If only asylum seekers who meet the criteria for asylum sought asylum, the asylum process would function smoothly.
9
After reading what you wrote, I have to say, Trump has no heart; however, I have to remind myself the man does not read. Cannot listen to a briefing for more than 10 minutes! How can he know this tragedy exists just outside our borders. We have an almost iliterate president, and half our country loves him, for he has made the stock market boom, and started supporting coal, gas and oil. All climate wrecking machines. Trump will be remembered for bringing down our country; our beautiful country to dollars and cents; a country without heart if you looked from outside.
3
I read only half of this. I couldn't continue. This is what we are.
1
Read the rest of it. It is worth the time and attention. Yes, it is painful to know the history. But it is still possible to enter history and to affect the outcome.
At the end of the essay there is a plea to support the bill introduced in Congress by Zoe Lofgren, to protect the rights of immigrants, to admit immigrants legally when they have a case for asylum, to give the the time and support to defend their case. It is a worthy bill with many cosponsors and deserves a hearing. It should be passed out of committee and brought to the floor of the House. We have not yet lost our republic. We still have the freedom to act. Don’t let it go.
3
You write people who lose their asylum case in court must be deported, not those who have lived here peacefully for 30 years. What happens to a person who loses their asylum case in court, goes underground, births American children and lives here peacefully for 30 years? Also, what happened to the rule that a person must apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach? Lastly, personal stories like this should be irrelevant. Intelligent people should base policy on objective facts.
17
Excellent column, Sonia--from one who knew you as a youngster in Johnson County.
2
“Liberals might not like this, but we also have to deport migrants who lose their cases.” I am a liberal and I have absolutely no problem with this. We should have laws that are fair and just and then followed. Two more points.
If we don’t want people coming here from Central American countries our strategy should be to make life in those countries pleasant and happy so no one wants to leave. Think of the Marshal Plan for Europe after WWII. We helped our former enemies to rebuild their societies and have a better life. Last time I checked they did not want to fight us again, although we now seem to be pursuing policies to make Europeans dislike us. Perhaps we now think this is a better strategy.
Hate crimes here against Jews are way up recently. No one can say for sure what is causing it. President Trump recently said 'I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world', so it can’t be politics. These hate crimes do have a chilling effect. Think about Madeline Albright. Her parents converted from Judaism to Catholicism during her early childhood in an effort to avoid anti-Jewish persecution. American bigots may convince many Jews to abandon their faith for self-protection. If so, what will that say about our country and our values?
4
We can start by admitting the US was responsible for many of the problems facing those refugees from Central America. Going back to the days of the "Banana Republics".
2
When Americans feel that borders are under control they will calm down about immigration. Right-wing blowhards like Trump will loose steam and politics probably will drift left. Democrats should support whatever it takes to get control of our borders. There are many other, more pressing issues, like climate change. Even the border wall, if it helps the situation by getting Americans to calm down about this issue, will be well worth the money spent. And at $4 billion per year, is only one one-thousandth of the annual federal budget.
168
@Tucson Geologist A waste of money is a waste of money, even if it might make some people feel more secure.
39
@Tucson Geologist A simpler and more successful solution would be to mandate E-Verify for every employer in the U.S. It's very inexpensive and works well. The few glitches that you hear about from time to time are less troubling than all of the issues at the border. If undocumented workers can't work in this country they won't come. BTW, the $4 billion is going to be $100 billion before the wall is complete. What would I do with the $100 billion? Put it into our public school system.
92
How much health care could be provided by that $4 billion? Food for the hungry? Shelter for the homeless? Repairs to roads and bridges? Repair of antiquated electrical grids and water systems? I can find MUCH better uses.
21
Until anyone and everyone who crosses the border "undocumented" is detained and held until deported, we have an open border. Until "asylum" seekers who walk through stable countries to come here are sent back to those stable countries (ie Mexico), we have an open border.
Once these rules are put in place and enforced, we can grant "dreamers" a "yellow card," a permanent probationary residency here in which they can do everything but vote and sponsor their relatives to come here. Their children will be citizens. And if they commit a crime, they are deported. Right away. The rest of the illegal immigrants can stay if they have jobs and are not on any form of public assistance (ie medicaid).
11
I see.
So first, we accept your rather strange definitions of everything. Second, we freeze all immigration or refugee status of brown people, thus helping destabilize every country between Texas and Brazil.
Then, we hand DACA kids a yellow card, which I suppose is at least a step up from a Star of David armband. They can’t vote, can’t have a relative visit, and if they look at us real Americans crosswise, due process gets skipped and out they go. But hey, their kids “can,” be citizens. If we real AMericans feel like it.
Immygrants are welcome, provided they agree to have their kids starve and flop along without help if they get sick or injured. Nice touch there, as nothing’s smarter than having a bunch of folks around who haven’t been vaccinated or whatever, and who a doc can’t see in an age of coronaviruses.
Good thinking. Not completely daft at all. And Christian; oh, my, yes, how very Christian.
@Robert
1. Race has nothing to do with it.
2. Yes- they cannot vote. They came illegally. But they are now legal permanent residents. And their relative can visit, if they get visas to do so. They just cannot use their DACA recipient as an anchor to get them citizenship
3. Immigrants who can support themselves are welcome. Why should I pay more taxes to support other people's dreams?
And, no, not a Christain... Apropos to your Star of David comment, grandchild of a camp survivor. Thank you
6
We might not be in the midst of a nativist resurgence now if we hadn't acted as if culture were infinitely elastic. The pattern of nativism coinciding with an increase in foreign-born residents looks real; we now have the highest number of foreigners in a century. If we want to be the beacon of freedom and opportunity, and to help those in direst need, then we might have done better to pace ourselves. Lectures about the melting pot and sob stories are proving to be ineffectual checks against cultural panic. Let's recognize that and try to help refugees while at the same time preserving a greater sense of stability and continuity for the hosts.
16
@Blair I suspect most of the cultural panic is coming from areas with very few immigrants.
@Blair
It it hadn't been for Trump and Fox News there would be no "cultural panic". That "panic" was created by anti-immigrant rhetoric alone. It is similar to the "panic" people feel about Jews or whatever vulnerable minority comes into the cross-hairs of rightwingers who use fear to win elections, and to pass sadistic immigration law. It's a figment of your imagination, but it seems so real that you are compelled to repeat it and believe it. Sad.
1
@Blair, the United States of America seems to be founded on the dubious distinction that in order to live up to its mandate it has to dissolve into the world around it. For a specific place, somewhat of a fool's errand, I'd say.
2
Ms. Nazario's column resonated with me. My husband is Jewish. I am Assyrian Christian (from Iran) by ancestry. My grandparents fled the Armenian Genocide (that saw the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, along with two million Armenians). My mother-in-law is a Holocaust survivor. She lost many of her family in Theresienstadt.
I was born in this country. I'm now in my 60's, and I am sickened by the viciousness I see among many Americans now. This is not the America I grew up in. The America I grew up in was a much more welcoming place. The America I grew up in had citizens who were glad to see immigrants come here and make a better life for themselves and their children -- often fleeing unspeakable conditions.
That America is gone. I doubt I'll see it again in my lifetime.
But as one of Middle Eastern ancestry, I can tell you what this America looks like now. It has a very ugly face. Its citizens scream at immigrants and even native-born minorities to "go back to where they came from" and "we don't want you here". This America is a breeding ground for white nationalism. This America has seen hate crimes skyrocket in the last three years. And this America has nearly half of us who love a president who tells them that the KKK and neo-Nazis are some very fine people.
Of course I'm saddened by the ugly America I see now. But I am even more fearful for its future.
8
"more than half of the migrants she has interviewed have had someone in their family kidnapped, extorted or assaulted by narco cartels while waiting just across the border in Nuevo Laredo, a place so dangerous the U.S. State Department compares it to Syria, North Korea or Yemen."
I want a very strong border between me and a place where cartels and gangs run rampant. I don't want a lot of people coming from places like that to here.
The author decries the high rates of asylum denials at the southern border. But the reason denial rates are so high is that so few people there have valid asylum claims. High crime or gang activity in your home country is not a basis for claiming asylum; asylum is for members of a particular group, e.g. religious or ethnic, persecuted by their government. For years we were far to permissive in allowing people to enter who did not have valid claims.
24
I believe that most Americans are warm, generous, inviting people willing to extend to others in time of need. What I am sensing in America at this moment is an awareness that Americans themselves are now the ones in great need. Everything in the headlines and in our own families show a country in crisis; economically, emotionally, spiritually, socially we are hurting and turning inward. The destruction of family farms and businesses, hundreds of thousands homeless, waves of deaths of despair, the evisceration of the middle class and the extreme wealth gap are all the evidence of this.
How can we extend a helping hand to strangers when our own is in such great need?
10
@mltrueblood Correct. There are some on the left who promise we can take care of 'everyone' -- with your/my tax dollars mind you. But they make these promises simply to sway you to get elected. And once elected, we end up with government stagnation.
7
FWIW, in '06, and again in '13, the Senate overwhelmingly passed bipartisan immigration reform bills. Virtually all (D)s, and even many (R)s, voted in favor.
Both bills died in the TeaPartyFreedomCaucus House when (R) Speakers, Hastert and Boehner, refused to allow any discussion or debate.
(R)s do NOT want immigration reform. They need immigration as a wedge issue to distract their base, comprised of Spanky's beloved "uneducated people", while the (R)s transfer the rest of our nation's wealth to the Pluto-Corporatocracy that owns them.
11
A good start would be to prevent the sale of American made weapons, especially assault weapons, to South American countries, where they end up in the hands of gangs and other violent groups... Then maybe, less people will have to flee the violence of their homeland and stay put. Instead of ranting about immigrants flooding the US and so on, let's try to address the issues at the root. Causes of the population migration are complex, but surely, gratuitous violence and crime are among them.
6
Let’s not forget that many of the problems faced by today’s refugees stem from the colonial and cold war eras. They are the result of the enemy of my enemy is my friend doctrine.
In the last 200 yrs nations with military might divided up Africa and Asia. No thought was given to the history of the people there. Groups that hadn’t gotten along for centuries were forced to live in the same colony. The gov’ts of the modern nations were left to deal with the problems created by the Europeans. These were exacerbated during the Cold War when the US and the USSR interfered in the internal affairs of 3rd World nations.
Today Iraqi and Syrian refugees are forced to flee their homelands. Others become refugees due to poverty, climate issues and war as well.
My parents came here when they were 41. They wanted my sister and me to have opportunities that were not available to us in Portugal. If these had been available there my parents wouldn’t have left their families.
I suspect that many refugees and undocumented immigrants would choose to stay in their homelands if they had hope that their situations would improve. Since we and others are responsible for some of the problems they face, I think that we must help as many as we can. But most importantly we need to help their homelands so that they can have peaceful and productive lives there.
And let’s not forget that we allowed Bush et al to destroy Iraq. So it is our responsibility to help fix the nightmare that we created.
4
Bingo!
1
There is no rational debate anymore, no good faith. Everything is a football game now, red vs. blue. Nothing is serious until it's your family that they're hurting. The only way this changes is if the dems can convince enough people in the right states that the GOP (Trump) is hurting them and their family. Until then American society will be okay with hurting our fellow humans, because it's not our family...yet.
2
Immigration, illegal immigration and asylum seeking are distinct.
17
People of every color, race, creed and religion are capable of the most unspeakable cruelty. It never stops. It's happening is Syria right now. The rule of law is the exception, not the rule. Only through the rule of law can such cruelty and barbarity be stopped.
Until it doesn't. Having the rule of law is one thing, but respecting it and enforcing it is another. This is the threshold we have crossed with the Trump administration. Trump has just admitted that he is the chief law enforcement officer. He is the law. Result? Children get separated from their parents.
My sister is a teachers aid. She has kids that were in the cages. They will never see their parents again. Think about that. In America today, we separate little kids from their parents. Their crime? Seeking liberty and safety.
I am the son of an immigrant. My father spent seven years in Cuba trying to get in during the Jewish prohibition. His family that stayed behind were murdered by the Nazi's. My mothers parents fled Russia to avoid a lifetime of conscription, after my grandfather served his mandatory six years. They came in 1912 when Jews could get in.
I like to think that my existence has contributed to America. That my ancestors did also. When young, in Sat. services, there was a older man with numbers tattooed on his forearm. They were from the concentration camp. He ran a successful small business.
Don't keep us out. We understand what liberty is. It is the rule of law.
421
@Bruce Rozenblit: We are all descendants of immigrants. That is what being an American means.
41
@JDK Yes, since it has to do with federal and states right, also part of the "rule of law."
Besides, the penalty for immigration used to be a civil fine. Nothing is preventing the country from going back to it. Trump was elected for a variety of reasons but he got support from my Republican neighbours in NY because they figured he'd be a wrecking ball. They have nothing against immigration. As an immigrant myself, I'm probably a bit more strict than they are though they are mildy bigoted against black and muslim people.
@Jeff Black Americans are not descended from immigrants. Neither are Native Americans.
9
The author says "A vast majority of those who lose their asylum cases don’t leave the country. They stay and blend into the woodwork."
So let's have a policy where asylum seekers remain outside the US until their cases are heard. This would save a large number of unqualified people becoming illegal entrants. On this, I agree with Trump.
29
What you are saying is that we should have a policy that further endangers people until we have the time to decide if their lives are dangerous enough to allow them asylum, apparently because you don’t believe we can handle keeping track of them until their cases are decided. Keeping track of them would require manpower and would be aided by increasing our immigration legal system so that it could handle more cases more quickly. All of which costs money. Perhaps if we spent money on the immigration system rather than on building more wall we would have a better functioning system.
3
@Louise Cavanaugh
Let's do both. Spend money on border enforcement and on processing asylum cases. And let's also spend money on propping up institutions in those countries people are fleeing which promote education and family planning. Too many people and not enough opportunity down there. But we can't just let everyone in who feels endangered.
8
The author makes a point that we need to prioritize asylum seekers who are fleeing harm, and makes a point to demonstrate the conditions which led her family to seek a new life in the US--yet with so many coming from heart wrenching conditions who seek a better life in these times, the author's story if taking place today could be sitting in a pile, almost indistinguishable, from hundreds of thousands of others.
Most liberals aren't for "open borders," and it seems dangerous to suggest this to be the case. I am not hearing democratic candidates shout support for open borders either. Rather, it's a term used by anti-immigration hardliners as a fear tactic to muster support for the horrific actions taken against asylum seekers, including family separation.
One loophole that needs to be closed up is that in which American agricultural firms hire undocumented workers, often helping them to attain illegal paperwork or otherwise just pretending not to know anything, and when discovered, pay measly fines that pale in comparison to their profits.
The corporate managers use undocumented status to threaten immigrants who put up with poor working conditions and abuse, which is presumably less so, but perhaps not always, than what they'd deal with in their countries of origin. These corporations often lobby against using national databases to help identify illegal workers.
Hold these corporate actors criminally liable instead of merely fined and things would likely change.
4
I don't find these opinion articles on immigration particularly insightful or helpful. Dragging out the usual suspects of family members disadvantaged by cruel immigration policies is a cheap method used to persuade. The central question still involves: when and how to say "no." The US is already the third most populous country in the world. Certainly we have some say in who can enter; at this point, most of the applicants are from nearby (Central America), but there are many applicants farther away that are just as needy. Is geography the only criteria for entry? Who says? Why? I see no answers in this piece. Mostly emotional arguments that don't elucidate or inform.
41
Wonderful article, but It appears that the readers of the NYT are not as well versed in American history as I thought they were. Perhaps the gentleman with the Scottish surname should read the historical newspaper records recounting the complaints about allowing "brutish, uncouth, dirty Scots louts into OUR country." The Americans descended from Italian immigrants might be interested in the mass hanging of 11 Italian immigrants in New Orleans in 891. They were not considered "white" by their fellow citizens and "had no papers, and should go back where they came from!" They were considered just as "dirty" as the Irish. Then there were the undesirable Jews, the Chinese, the Poles, etc. The list goes on. Many of these immigrants were looking for better economic conditions. If they had not been allowed to resettle in America their descendants would not have the opportunity today to express their racist views as they see fit. Ironic, isn't it.
While I don't advocate open borders and am not a "liberal Democrat," I do remember my ancestors' history and why they fled to America and encourage others to do the same, unless of course, your last name is "Sitting Bull." If so, you have every right to complain.
3
@Mel Except that it's not 1820, and homesteading is pretty much over. The point is that invoking modes and attitudes of yesteryear is not always--even often--applicable to current problems. We cling to the poetry that animates our idealized narrative, but we ignore practical realities at our peril.
17
@Mel
One point.
Indigenous Americans in the United States are actually taking the lead in immigrant rights right now. The Siting Bull reference is inaccurate in this context.
@Blair
"The point is that invoking modes and attitudes of yesteryear is not always--even often--applicable to current problems" ..... except when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Or when it is convenient.
This is a reasonable opinion piece. Towards the end, Ms. Nazario writes:
"Yet there is another loophole that must be addressed: A vast majority of those who lose their asylum cases don’t leave the country. They stay and blend into the woodwork. This rightfully riles Americans who believe these unsuccessful asylum-seekers are thumbing their noses at our legal process. Require Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus on deporting people who have just lost their asylum cases, not the parent who has been here 30 years."
I would add that we need to greatly reduce immigration numbers. We've added more than 40 million (two NY States' worth) since 1990. Projections by the Census Bureau are nearly another NY State per decade over the next five decades. How are we going to reduce global warming emissions with that kind of growth? And note: the average immigrant's GHe rise fourfold after arrival. Our population is environmentally unsustainable.
American swing voters want less immigration (are you listening, Democratic candidates who all seem to favor open borders?).
https://www.axios.com/midterm-voters-want-to-cut-legal-immigration-1525107140-74686ffd-0a8f-44b1-a470-5c007fa8dd1b.html
11
Since we currently have about 40 million immigrants in this country, total, I somehow find it tough to believe that 40 millin immigrants entered the country since 1990.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
@Robert
There were far fewer immigrants living in the US at the beginning of that period, as you can see in your link. Meanwhile, some immigrants already in the country died over that period.
2
Poignant story of a refugee who fled political and social persecution, befitting to the letter of our asylum laws and its true purposes. But 21st immigration is a mix of refugees and economic opportunists. Asylum is not for the latter and yet they have clogged that channel both in the US, Europe, Australia and other westernized countries. If asylum law is to survive, don't allow economic migrants to use that channel and instead create a pathway that gives at least a few (because we cannot accommodate all) a chance to work and then leave to go back home to build up their own countries and people. Otherwise, get ready for the next caravan and the next wave of visa overstays and over the next decades.
11
"A liberal is someone who would prefer to let nine people abuse the system so the 10th won't starve; a conservative is someone who would prefer to let 9 people starve to keep the 10th from abusing the system."
I wish I could remember exactly where I read this, or who said it --- I think it was a quote in an opinion column, and obviously I'm paraphrasing. I think I read it in a context of welfare reform, but the actions of our current government on many different issues bring it to mind several times a day.
5
@Bruce It mirrors "Blackstone's Ratio," one of the central tenets of criminal justice:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Both Judaism and Islam favor this view. Maimonides argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice" and was expounding on both Exodus 23:7 ("the innocent and righteous slay thou not"). And Muhammed said, "Avoid legal punishments as far as possible, and if there are any doubts in the case then use them, for it is better for a judge to err towards leniency than towards punishment."
Otto von Bismarck was reputed to have said, "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." As did Pol Pot.
And us here in the US?
Dick Cheney famously declared, "I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent...I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. I'd do it again in a minute."
2
@Matt B --- thanks for this. I guess it's one of those sentiments (like "the graveyards are full of indispensable men") that has been expressed by many.
Poignant story of a refugee who fled political and social persecution, befitting to the letter of our asylum laws and its true purposes. But 21st immigration is a mix of refugees and economic opportunists. Asylum is not for the latter and yet they have clogged that channel both in the US, Europe, Australia and other westernized countries. If asylum law is to survive, don't allow economic migrants to use that channel and instead create a pathway that gives at least a few (because we cannot accommodate all) a chance to work and then leave to go back home, where they belong and should be growing their own countries.
6
You bring up many concerns/issues in the immigration issue, to and for which our policy leaders continually do not have an answer for.
The House Resolution, the Refugee Protection Act, as you state in your IX paragraph, by design to put these measures in effect will not make it out of a subcommittee without major changes in it's desires to resolve our immigration policies we currently are adhering to. And unfortunately our current policies are not against the law.
We need a change in our policies, and this should be a major issue for debate and legislation, enacted and enforced. Some will like it some will not. But most will agree we need to change our policies. Agree with allowing the 11-12 million estimated immigrants (those currently here with no citizenship) be given access to citizenship in the US, but there has to be a cut off somewhere.
Can a policy be created and accepted that will work so this can happen"? And what might this one piece of legislative policy look like? Starting here would be a good place to start reforming our laws on immigration's. I would like to see an answer from you, Congress, and others.
1
@Kerm
In 2013, the Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill that would have given immigrants here a path to citizenship, strengthened employment verification, and created a system of work visas. The bill died, though, because of one Senator Jeff Sessions, whose hostility to immigrants put him on the outer fringes of the Republican Party, but who successfully killed the deal in the House.
Then Trump won the Presidency on building a wall and hatred of immigrants and made Jeff Sessions his AG. Sessions cancelled DACA, called asylum seekers criminals leading to family separations, said victims of gang violence no longer qualified for asylum, and reversed most of humane asylum law.
Jeff Sessions is gone (although he's running for Senate again) but his anti-immigration zealotry not only remains, it has become mainstream in the Republican Party. Now, they want to punish legal immigrants for using public benefits.
The key to immigration reform is to not elect people like Trump and Jeff Sessions. It is to listen to the better angels of our nature. Without people in power who understand that immigrants add value to our country, not detract from it, and who want a humane asylum system, there will never be sensible reform.
1
Immigration—and asylum—have been, and still are, integral to the formation and development of the United States.
Still, there needs to be an efficient, transparent and fair process that is respected by those wish to come to this nation.
To that end, we need to work much more closely with those nations from which a majority of immigrants depart. In addition, we need to sharply ramp up our immigration staffing to properly—and humanely—process those who are new to the United States.
3
I cried reading this. Tears for the harrowing story of Ms. Nazario's sister. Tears for the stories of the others fleeing similar hellscapes. And tears for what this once great nation has now become.
4
You almost lost me when you said, "Stop talking about idiotic things like open borders."
No one wants open borders. Not Democrats, Not Republicans.
7
@Paul Langer
This man wants open borders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html
6
This opinion piece addresses only refugees, but our entire immigration system has been contorted by a lack of consensus on economic migrants. The two, refugees and economic migrants, have been conflated because it serves the political interest of the xenophobe in the White House.
Addressing illegal employers (employers, like Trump, who hire undocumented workers) is the only way to reform this unjust immigration system that is tearing our country apart. Mandatory use of E-Verify and criminal prosecution of illegal employers is the only way to break this deadlock.
9
I am struck by the authors actions. At the age of 14 she lobbied for the release of her sister who was being held prisoner in Argentina under the rule of a monster dictator, General Videla, which resulted in an inquiry by Secretary of State Kissinger and eventually, the release of her sister!!! Where else would this happen!!! I am in awe that a child, the daughter of immigrants, was allowed such a powerful voice for change. The real story about immigrants is right here.
5
I am no great fan of President Trump, and I don’t support his immigration policies. Until he also addresses rampant visa abuse and overstaying, he’s not keeping his commitments. We need to shut down more immigration, and then systematically accept refugees who qualify.
162
@MyjobisinIndianow "and then" accept qualified refugees? Qualified refugees are not in a position to just wait a few years for us to get around to considering their applications. They're in desperate situations, and potentially mortal peril. They're not on holiday.
39
@MyjobisinIndianow : And just who would you consider "qualified?" Certainly not those listed on the bse 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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
24
@MyjobisinIndianow
And we need to prevent American employers from human trafficking and wage skimming. The root cause here are American employers taking advantage of desparate people and breaking the labor/tax laws of this country. This is step one of the illegal immigration problem, Americans.
39
This is a beautiful story, It is similar to my own immigration saga. My grandmother lost her entire family in the Holocaust. My mother was hounded by the KGB for being a dissident. Despite my family being highly qualified professionals, the socialist regime bled us of our money and kicked us out of the country with nothing. I was a pre-teen but I remember the fear of being stateless. Fortunately, first Israel and then the US offered us shelter and opportunities and I will remain endlessly grateful for that. I am fully on board with Ms. Nazario’s suggestions. Accept more qualified immigrants, especially from places like Iran and China where you have totalitarian governments conducting a war on intellectuals. Accept more genuine asylum- seekers and establish clear and transparent criteria as who qualifies and why. Treat would-be immigrants with dignity and respect. And deport those who came to the country illegally, who have a criminal record, or who are unwilling to work hard.
7
This was a great piece.
It seems that humans tend to identify with people similar to themselves, and, if in power, will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from the hated and feared “other” and whatever perceived dread that will come if the “other” takes over.
Yet I couldn’t help but notice that even during his own persecution, the author’s own grandfather shunned his daughter for marrying outside of their group.
Fortunately, he came around, but I guess it’s all just a matter of degrees of hatred and fear.
8
What a stunning, remarkable and very informative piece of writing.
2
US refugee policy needs to start with generating LESS refugees.
US bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya generated tens of millions, few of whom were admitted to the US.
Ms. Merkel who took in more then 1 million of Afghan, Syrian and Iraqi refugees fleeing American bombs.
11
@talesofgenji And the far right is taking off in Germany. When are liberals going to start putting two and two together?
6
Trump has created the myth of Democrats wanting to open the floodgates to an army of criminals, who just happen to be brown.
We are not having a rational debate about how many immigrants should be admitted and according to what standards. That would be a reasonable issue to discuss. In normal times we would be having committee hearings in congress and different ideas would be exchanged and debated.
But these are not normal times. The sole purpose of the administration's policies is to use fear and racism and religious bigotry to get Donald Trump reelected.
472
@writeon1 All the Democratic Presidential candidates stood on the same public stage and raised their hands in unison when asked if they would support free healthcare for illegal aliens. How is that rational when we have 640,000 medical bankruptcies annually? Who pays for unlimited healthcare for tens of millions of illegal aliens?
46
@JDK we "give away" medical care to prisoners... Which I'm sure we could turn into an attack ad if we were clever about it!
So-and-so wants to give free flu shots away and fix the broken legs of just anyone who hobbles into an emergency room, without checking their ID! Awful.
11
@JDK See the coronavirus situation - free healthcare is the sane policy. Likewise with education and licensing.
State's rights, remember. And that is enshrined in the Constitution.
11
Your piece alludes to the role that the US has had in supporting dictators and thus helping to create the conditions that make people want to flee in the first place. You did not, however, call for a re-examination of our foreign policy/interventions. One significant way to help stem the tide of misery and massive migration to this country is to stop supporting the conditions that lead to it. BTW, I don't know where you get the idea that liberals want "open" borders. I challenge you or anyone to name any politician advocating for allowing anyone to come in at any time. Given the US' role in helping to create some of these conditions, I believe we have a moral responsibility to help the people who have suffered as a result. Speaking of "moral", I find it interesting that self-identified Christians--especially Evangelicals--are relatively mute about this issue. Both the Old and New Testament clearly speak to the issue of "Who is my neighbor?" and to offering refuge to the "widow, the orphan, and the alien." It seems like these Christians (many who are Trump supporters) are practicing the "moral relativism" that many of them are so quick to criticize others about. While I generally agree with what you propose, I also believe US foreign policy/intervention could play a significant role in helping to promote the conditions that will result in people wanting to stay in their home country (or to return to their country).
2
Although no politician I know of has used the term ‘open borders’, quite a few, including presidential candidates, have used the term ‘decriminalizing immigration.’ To all intents and purposes it’s the same thing.
22
@Terry Melser Decriminalizing does not mean legalization. It means that it is no longer a violation of the criminal code, but still a civil offense or infraction.
Example: Speeding is not a crime. It's an infraction. Contempt of court is not a crime. It's a civil offense.
When you hear about, for example, decriminalizing marijuana possession, it means that it is no longer treated as a crime but more like, for example, jaywalking.
Decriminalization and legalization are two separate animals.
1
@Karuna : decriminalizing illegal immigration and giving illegals perks and letting them is OPEN BORDERS.
And if you want a name, here's one: FARHAD MANJOO.
Just last year, he had a front page article about "WE MUST HAVE OPEN BORDERS".
Not ambiguous at all. The left absolutely wants open borders.
Please reread this article here by Ms. Nazario -- she uses fancy language, but in the end….she wants OPEN BORDERS and massive illegal immigration and no enforcement of our laws.
5
Easy to judge from where you sit, you got yours. You assume that those judging asylum seekers are fair and not fulfilling Trump's bigotry. There are many cases where asylum seekers "lost" their case and have been returned to be killed.
3
The author claims that "many on both the right and the left have argued that the choice Americans face on immigration and asylum is between zero tolerance and opening the floodgates. But this is a false choice."
Not only is it a false choice, it's a false claim. Democrats are not proposing "opening the floodgates." That is a Republican trope entirely created by them and propagated by their propaganda network.
Democrats proposed an immigration reform bill that was accepted by congressional Republicans. But the hard right opposed it, and Trump refuses to even consider anything but deportation.
"Opening the floodgates" and "open borders" are falsehoods from the GOP. Very sad to see this author repeat them.
8
You are wrong. As long as “asylum” seekers are released we have open borders.
9
The only way to solve refugee problems is at the source country, otherwise the problems continue forever.
People want to have a safe, rewarding life. Most don't really want to uproot themselves from their communities unless that is their remaining good choice. We should pursue policies to ensure that other governments treat their people well, otherwise the pain in those countries will continue and we will forever have an influx of refugees.
9
Let's begin solving problems of the world here. Solve our problems of unemployment, under-employment, overall poverty, healthcare, etc. Do that first, then look to helping the rest of the world. We have a lot of our own problems that we need to solve first.
15
Besides the difference between your family who entered the US legally and immigrants crossing the border illegally is not only that fact but also the apparent fact that your father was well educated and able to make an immediate contribution to our country. Our country can ill afford to take in every one trying to get in illegally, especially those who are incapable of doing anything but menial labor.
28
@ MCH.....
My family came here legally in 1963. We had to wait 10 years for our immigration visas. My Native born uncle sponsored us. My father finished 4th grade. My mother started working in her father’s store when she was 7. Here my mother was a stitcher and my father did menial work in a boat yard. He worked outside no matter the weather. After work he walked to night school to learn English. My parents 1st major purchase was the World Book.
My parents never had credit cards. They did buy some things on lay-a-way. They paid their bills on time. They paid cash for our house. It was a fixer upper. My father renovated it by himself. Unlike the rich and college educated stable genius (SG), they never declared bankruptcy. He declared bankruptcy 6 times. He doesn’t pay his bills. But my parents are the type of non-genius immigrants that the SG doesn’t want here.
I understand some are so desperate that they cross the border illegally. The conditions they live under are worse than those that I experienced when I was little in Portugal.
I know that the immigration system needs to be fixed. Something that needs to be addressed is cost. Do you know that a green card costs $540 per person? I am lucky that I was able to come here legally but if the laws change families like mine won’t qualify.
BTW: I know native born Americans who won’t work for the slave wage of $9 an hour despite being high school dropouts. My parents worked hard for less than $4 an hour.
4
The author is commendably passionate about the asylum and refugee seekers. This is, however, a problem for which there is not an acceptable solution. The population of the United States has more than doubled in the last recent decades, and this population increase has been driven by immigration. It is so interesting to me that so few recognize the implications of this on the environment- the congestion, the loss of habitat for other species, the pressure on water resources (where acquivers in the West are drawn down to the point where the ground is sinking). In brief we are overpopulated presently and should be attempting a negative population growth rate, which means drastic restrictions on immigration as well as government policy which discourages more than two children per family.
23
I read many comments on NYT articles, and I must say that this is the first time I have ever seen so many comments from conservative viewpoints. Normally those views are missing, or are overwhelmed by liberal commentators.
I suppose that simply highlights that this is a very difficult, and contentious, issue. The minority of NYT readers who are more conservative jump in to support that aspect of the issue, and the majority of NYT readers who are more liberal either stay on the sidelines or are more measured in their comments.
And the solution to the problem must also be measured. We cannot help everyone (we would be swamped), yet we must help some. It's a bit like being on a raft from a ship which has sunk. If too many get on the raft, it will sink and all will perish. But if too few get on, the opportunity to save more lives is lost.
There was a time when American politicians found ways to develop measured solutions. This is a situation which cries for such a solution. I pray that wise leaders of both parties will recognize that, and find a way to work out a compromise.
5
The measured solution for over a century has been legal immigration where new residents of the US were screened before being admitted. There are currently limits on the numbers of persons from each nationality who can legally be admitted. Democrats have strangely, not chosen to change the numbers. The illegal immigration from Spanish speaking countries has caused a ten year wait time for someone seeking legal immigration from those countries unless they claim that they are in fear of their life. Those people jump to the head of the line and make legal applicants wait longer.
19
With the refugee crisis only getting worse we would be taking in 100,000 Central Americans a year. What about Asians? What about Somalians? Ethiopians, Congolese, Sudanese, basically all of Sub-Sahara Africa.
What about Afghanis, Syrians, Iraquis, Palestinians? There are still more that I am not mentioning.
I am a Democrat and am ok with bringing in some refugees but this is totally unrealistic and is why Trump was elected and will likely be re-elected.
38
@Charles alexander
Agree. And the Democratic party better start singing the praises of law and order or it will go the way of the dinosaurs. Americans know from their history what a law abiding country is, one where no sheriff is needed in town, and everyone's front door is open, at night. Justice creates and maintains peace. Do not forget that DNC.
15
"Last October, not one refugee was admitted, at a moment when nearly 71 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes, the most since World War II." This is one segment of the population that would, if they could, emigrate to western nations. The effects of climate change and the shortage of economic opportunity adds more millions. Here (in this article) we have at least some reference to the magnitude of the immigration problem, though it seldom gets mentioned in the immigration debate. We have an obligation as a stable and prosperous nation to intervene on behalf of decent people who are suffering through no fault of their own, but do we have an obligation to do so by accepting half the population of countries that are in turmoil for various reasons? Fix the problem at the source. Otherwise, we are confronted by a migration imperative that has no end.
351
@fgros More times than not, American (and "coalition") foreign policy, interventionism, and meddling in other countries' affairs IS the problem at the source of many of these refugee crises in 2020.
49
@fgros
In a lot of the countries mentioned as prime immigration problems, it was OUR CIA that messed with their local elections and put into power these dictators or do nothing presidents.
If our society and our government stopped the war on drugs and made them legal, allowed citizens to grow the marijuana, the poppies, etc. for taxed dispensaries, the cartels would lose their power and the people may even get their countries back. Then illegal immigration would not be such a problem.
We need to have just immigration laws that can be amended for future circumstances- climate problems, famine, etc.
31
@fgros
Our obligation has changed to putting immigrant children in cages, and building a wall with money taken frequently from the pentagon budget. A wall built to please our egocentric amoral president. A man who hasn't considered tunnels can be carved under barriers, like his "beautiful wall." It will be called Trump's Folly in the years to come.
America is the composite of folk from all parts of the globe. Our ingenuity and exceptionalism, comes from this advantageous genetic mix. The exception is of course aberrant humans like Trump, a man without soul or a moral compass.
17
The author’s story is indeed compelling. But she misses the mark with her false dichotomy describing those who would slam the doors shut and those who would open the floodgates. She apparently has bought into the lie that “leftists” want open borders, that prosecutorial discretion is amnesty, and the other blatant falsehoods that don’t caricature, but rather have no relationship with the policy proposals of almost every Democrat.
So, to set the record straight, Democrats are for sensible, humane, enforceable immigration policies. We want those fleeing persecution to find a safe refuge within our borders. We want those who are willing to come here to work to be treated fairly, including the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from economic activity.
Don’t contribute to the right wing lies by repeating them.
3
@Kevin Brock
So you are OK with turning away economic asylum seekers? Put that in your sensable policy and it might gain more traction.
4
@Kevin Brock Democrats want to decriminalize illegal entry and deport only violent felons-- that's the platform for most of the candidates.
If they're not "setting the record straight," who is?
4
@Kevin Brock : the left absolutely wants open borders.
YOU want open borders.
If you were honest, you hope to "winnow out" all the evil white working class American voters who "refuse to vote your way".
Every refugee, probably every future illegal in hundreds of nations, now knows all they have to do is get to the US border and scream "asylum" to get a free pass into the USA.
Thanks, liberals!
7
"Democrats need to get woke and realize that any immigration reform plan has to show they believe in the rule of law."
Excellent article, but would take exception to your above comment. Barack Obama, one of our most respected President's, had a comprehensive immigration policy. 5 million illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, and other charges were deported.
The Democrats for years have been trying to pass fair and just immigration laws, but to no avail. Our Republican Congressional leaders seem fine with turning a blind eye to what this President is doing with asylum seekers. And until that changes, no good will come of it.
This Administration has to be changed out in November, and a majority Democratic House and Senate to make positive changes to our immigration laws.
546
@cherrylog754
Well cherrylog754, if you intend amnesty for the tens of millions who have violated our laws, just come out and say so - don’t clothe it as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
42
@cherrylog754
No. That vaunted "comprehensive immigration reform" bill of 2013 would have nearly tripled legal immigration, to the equivalent of nearly one and a half New York States per decade. Yes, nearly one third of that total would have been guest workers, but since the legislation pushed enforcement off into the vague future--no national, mandatory E-Verify--the guest workers would have had no incentive to leave.
28
Correct. Here's the bill, passed with bipartisan support in the Senate, never touched by the GOP House, under Boehner or Ryan.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744/text
10
The problem is, many of our Democratic political leaders share Trump’s contempt for the rule of law when it comes to immigration enforcement. This essay pretends to address this problem, while advocating passage of a bill which would weaken border security and immigration enforcement generally.
It’s all well and good to tell sad stories about your family. But we live in a world with 4X the population of the 1930s, half of whom want to move to the developed world They have all learned to call themselves refugees. It would be foolish and irresponsible to let more than a small percentage of them immigrate to the US and Europe.
You say that we should allow anyone who says they are “afraid “ in, and then send back those who don’t meet refugee criteria. But of course sending anyone back will be met with more sad stories, about their family, your family. Also more incredulity that anyone could be so cruel as to send someone back to difficult conditions.
Here’s the reality. Ecologically the world needs a lot fewer Americans, not a lot more.
Economically, we need tight labor markets if we want to succeed in sharing America’s wealth more equitably.
Politically, we need greater solidarity, not greater diversity, if we hope to strengthen an insufficient safety net.
What we don’t need is an expansive refugee policy built for the 20th and not the 21st century.
328
@Philip Cafaro
Wrong, wrong and wrong. This nation has plenty of room for refugees, however we define the term. This nation is not overpopulated. An equitable wealth distribution does not result from a tight labor market - it follows on a re-distributive (fair) income tax regime. This nation is so much bigger than you suggest - not just physically, but in its place as a beacon of hope for the oppressed of the world.
78
@Philip Cafaro
We are the third most populous country on earth. Number one in co2 emissions per capita. 5% of the worlds population using 25% of its resources. The left cannot get it thru their PC heads that we are vastly over populated by any measure. The planet adds >80 million more people every year. Everyone would come here if we let them. The era of a vast empty continent ended over 150 years ago. Everywhere on earth is now ridiculously over populated. Humans are destroying the only home we and all other species have thru population growth. We can help them reduce their numbers at home while we do the same here. We cannot and should not be taking anymore people in. You cannot call yourself and environmentalist and say you care about climate change and be for mass immigration ( or any increase in US or the planets population) they are mutually exclusive concepts.
99
Excellent comment. I would like to add the reading NYTimes readers’ comments is eye opening. The readership is well educated and largely liberal, yet appears to be squarely against illegal immigration (now euphemized as “undocumented”). Clearly Democrats and the media are severely out of touch with the country, including many (most?) on the left. This disconnect is baffling and worrying, and bodes very ill for the future.
52
Perhaps the strangest thing about American nativism is its built-in hypocrisy. We European descendants are not America's First Peoples. How did we reach the point where even Trump, a grandson of immigrants, embodies the nativist claims? To quote Sen. S. I. Hayakawa during the Panama Canal treaty debate, but with respect to American land: "It's ours and we should keep it. We stole it fair and square." The history of the European take over of North America is a history of "Guns. Germs, and Steel" in Jared Diamond's eloquent phrase.
So now nativists cling to this land as their new Holy Land. My forebears came over fleeing Scandinavian poverty and Irish intolerance of the Catholics toward Methodists. Yet, from the failure to recall that before Jamestowne the Spanish were settling from Florida and the Gulf Coast to California to the pretense that we gave the tribes and the black slaves any semblance of a fair chance, nativists want to wall off America and make it Free for any of the Right Sort of white Christians only. Nativism = Racism.
14
@SpeakinForMyself well said.
I have yet to meet an immigrant, legal or not, who has not been grateful and willing to work hard to make a life for themselves in the United States. Lest we forget, we were all immigrants to this country at one time. Only the Native American tribes have the right to claim ownership.
There is however, one American whose family I wish had not been given entry—they came from Germany, you guess who!
A well written, informative essay, thank you Sonia!
5
Beautifully written, loaded with truth. But the conclusion that only Trump has broken the law is false. Our "resistance" has frozen the system and barred anything meaningful from happening on the many issues discussed here. To make progress was to aid Trump and that is verboten.
The rule of law would follow the constitution: Trump won and that was a loss for Clinton. Now one party takes time out to oust Trump. Instead of going for deals which Trump loves to do, it was, is and apparently will ever be, political warfare.
So thank you for excellent cases for legal immigration and respect for people, all people, who flee violence. But make no mistake, this is not merely Trump who is trashing the law of the land. We have only one president at the time, like it or not. Deal with that and move on.
18
How many millions of people around the world would choose America if permitted by an unrestricted immigration policy? Could any country - even rich America afford this? The reality is that these immigrants are not seeking sanctuary but economic betterment and many of our forefathers did. They choose America over other countries that would give them sanctuary but not the economic opportunities which in a post industrial world is rapidly disappearing even for Americans.
188
@perry hookman There any many people seeking asylum. Asylum is based on international law that we have agreed with and signed on to.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." ... Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations. It is possible to differentiate between economic refugees and legitimate asylum seekers.
5
@perry hookman Economic opportunities are disappearing for Americans because we spend so much money on our clumsy and disastrous foreign policy. We spend so many trillions destabilizing these various parts of the world, and when the people that live in these parts of the world make it out of the rubble, they want to go to America, because they know America caused the mess to begin with. Ask Syrians how nice their country was before we created the power vacuum around them that swallowed their country whole. Ask Central Americans how their leaders and governments were before we toppled them.
4
@perry hookman This problem is solving itself as Trump and republicans destroy the economic and climate conditions of the USA. It is currently not a desirable place to migrate to. Hence since about 2007 more Mexican Americans and US citizens come to MX than the inverse.
1
Your refugees fleeing for their lives mysteriously traverse multiple safe countries that offer them refugee status before claiming status at the US border.
A cynic might suggest that they are not fleeing danger but pursuing economic opportunity.
For the refugees in Argentina - how many other South American countries offered safe haven for people fleeing - but were not deemed worthy of consideration - the same for Central America?
258
@SteveRR
I agree. You are credibly a refugee at the first border crossing you arrive at. Thereafter, you are an economic migrant. Big difference.
46
@SteveRR You clearly are not aware of how south america was in the 70's: dictatorships galore, many times collaborating with each other at the task of getting rid of people they considered undesirable. It was not safe to jump out of one country and land in another, and that situation persists in many places
12
@SteveRR one of the Reps said it -- it's all about the Benjamins.
5
The trials of the author's family are great, but there are some facts about US immigration which should be considered:
The US has hosted more legitimate immigrants than any other country. We have the highest percentage of folks born in another country. We also have more illegal immigrants of any nation.
These facts are omitted from almost every article about immigration that I've read.
299
@James Maybe those facts are omitted because they aren't really relevant to the question at hand. What we used to do and what we do now are one of questions discussed in this article. Be sure not to count the millions who came to this country before we had immigration and refugee laws.
We are the 3rd largest country in the world, why wouldn't way take more refugees than anyone else?
53
We are the third largest country by area in the world, and we have way more territory in the temperate zone than the two largest countries (Russia and Canada.) We still have room.
28
@James "The US has hosted more legitimate immigrants than any other country."
Define "legitimate."
6
Personal histories and pictures of small children make great newspaper copy but bad immigration policy.
I watched the French movie 'Le Havre' just last night. Great movie, bad lesson. Private citizens in France end up making immigration decisions for another country. Marcel Marx doesn't offer to adopt Idrissa, he passes the buck.
If you welcome refugees, are you willing to invite them to live in your home and sponsor them, guarantee to provide for them so they don't burden a social welfare system designed for our own citizens?
Today's news tells of 900,000 Syrians fleeing their country. Where are they going? Legislation that mandates that we take in 100,000 people from three Central American countries? Ill-advised. Why should we do this? There is strength in numbers. Why don't these people fight back against their corrupt governments?
No more. We've heard all the arguments pro and con. Ours is a different world from the post-WWII era and requires different responses. Bad things happen to good, innocent people, still, in this enlightened 21st Century.
Close the border first and get a handle on the situation. Deport all non-citizens - those who came here under false pretenses. Enough is enough. No longer should the aggressive and geographically proximate take advantage of American largesse.
Send a message: solve your own problems at home.
172
@Chevy
I’d like to tell you a story.
I was in Iraq after Abu Ghraib. Do you know why holding yourself to a higher standard of moral and ethical behavior is important, beyond it’s just the right thing to do?
Before Abu Ghraib, intelligence sharing with the local nationals was robust. We had all the actionable intel we could ever need. But after Abu Ghraib, intelligence sharing plummeted. The locals no longer trusted the US.
Also, there was a massive uptick in hostilities. There were Americans that were killed and maimed all because some other Americans decided to betray the Constitution.
How does that relate to immigration? Who do you think protects our southern border? Mexico might look the other way when it comes to drug and human smuggling, but how many Al Qaeda operatives have crossed that border? None.
By shutting down immigration and refusing to admit people from conflict regions, the United States is creating unnecessary enemies. It’s not like there’s a shortage of resources in this country. It’s just that a few billionaires are hoarding all the resources.
The negative consequences of the present day decision to shut down the border may not be known for years. But every time a country embraces toxic nationalism and isolationism, it ends in disaster. Every time.
114
Chevy, when you say, “Send a message: solve your own problems at home” you ignore the fact that many of those problems are the result of American policies.
Trump has capitalized on isolationist sentiment during his presidency, arguing that America cannot be the world’s police force. But, America wouldn’t be in that position if it didn’t have interests to protect. The same goes for American taxpayers picking up the tab for something when other countries are unable or unwilling. In general, superpowers like America don’t blindly give large sums of money with no expectation of a return on that investment. America wouldn’t be giving this money if it didn’t have long-term interests to protect.
When it comes to immigration, America also has self-interested reasons to embrace displaced people. In many cases those very people are displaced as a result of the policing and influence-purchasing policies that America engages in for its own benefit. In other cases reasonable immigration policies can be used as leverage, to gain support from certain groups and governments or to help shift power away from those whose interests oppose ours.
Most importantly, reasonable immigration policies allow talented and diverse groups of people into a country which, at its best, has historically capitalized on its diversity.
“Not in my backyard” is a dangerous position to take on this issue, especially when the blame lies partly with the accuser.
58
@Chevy In too many cases the U.S. is responsible for the installation of those corrupt governments. Just google “Honduras — U.S. intervention” for example.
32
Not understanding why the US should be stuck being the immigration magnet you are calling for. There are lots of other countries that are safe countries but oh yeah, people won’t earn as much in those countries as they would in the US.
I agree that we need a sane immigration policy but I don’t agree that we should let all migrants (or asylum seekers) in just because they want to be here. Particularly since, as you acknowledge, there’s very little by way of consequence if they just stay.
301
The piece was long. Evidently you didn’t read it all.
The author asked also for compromise from Democrats on immigration policy.
Your comment is simply not a fair depiction of this article.
24
By actively undermining democratic governments throughout the 20th century, particularly in Central and South America, in favor of brutal and corrupt authoritarian regimes (supposedly more "loyal" to us), we the United States helped create the conditions for people, like this author, to flee their countries. Even still today, in Central America, by helping fund the criminal drug gangs by being the largest customer of their product, and then selling them the guns they use to terrorize their countrymen, we the United States still continue to help create the conditions that force these people to flee their countries.
28
What kind of “consequences” would you like to see? Really, what more would you like to see happen to those who are being persecuted elsewhere and end up here? How about their children, would you like some more consequences for them too? Do you decide who has been abused enough and those who need more abuse foisted upon them?
You got yours so everyone else can pound sand, right?
13
The most infrequent, and valid arguments here that (1) "open borders" is a formula for chaos and the overwhelming of western values cultivated over centuries; it would only benefit the international corporations that profit from vulnerable and abundant workers. Open borders cannot coexist with strong labor organizations--hence labor has been at the front of those demanding immigration controls. (2) The second, all too often ignored argument the author makes is that massive, desperate migrations are all too often the result of U.S. policy. Eisenhower overthrew first the secular democratic government of Iran (because British Petroleum asked him to), and then the social democratic government of Guatemala. both were pushed off their democratic paths and have never recovered. Reagan added El Salvador to the list of failed, violent states, and Obama/Clinton added Honduras (backing a military coup against an elected and liberal president), and then Libya to the list of failed, violent states, disastrous regime-changes they get far too little "credit" for.
Surely the U.S. owes reparations to the people from the countries we pushed into autocracy and violence. If we insist on blocking their desperate migrants, our sharp cuts in foreign aid and refusal to use personal penalties against their autocratic leaders is just sadistic. All presidents should pledge to avoid regime changes and support for evil autocrats. And pledge reparations to the long list of countries we damaged.
1
@Martha : is there anybody you DON'T want us to give billions or trillions in reparations?
What money would we have left for things like health care, M4A, free colleges and other lefty dreams, if every dime goes out in "reparations" towards all the aggrieved people on this planet?
Stop being so generous with MY MONEY!
BTW: most of those "democratic governments" you talk about were communists, which is why the US opposed them -- and some of those examples are almost 70 years ago.
8
Too many people trying to come who abuse the system. Most that get turned away and not refugees or asylum seekers. They're economic migrants.
President Trump is doing the right thing. This isn't the days of old when we were building a country. We need people who have something to offer, not those expecting to be given something for showing up.
And, the people who broke our laws to get here and remain need to be dealt with accordingly. Up to and including deportation, no matter how long they've been in our country.
94
@Randy L.
Funny how that notion of Trump doing the "right thing" only applies to people with no wealth or political connections.
While Trump rails against chain migration- he made sure his in-laws ( members of Communist party in Slovenia) got into the US just fine.
Why is chain migration ok for Melania's parents but not for others?
Whatever immigration policy we land on- it has to be free of the hypocrisy of Trump.
4
How many are too much - especially when our economy eventually takes a downward turn? Should people stay in their own nations and fight - and yes, die if they have to - to rid them of the inhumane regimes that oppress them? If Trump is reelected will Canada build a wall to keep us out? Should there be immigration laws at all and if so, who gets to stay and who cannot? Or, should error on the side of compassion be the ultimate determining factor? I choose the latter.
1
Interesting article, and it feels honest to me. Our immigration policies have sometimes failed in the past, for example in the 1930's in offering Europeans a refuge. But here's the thing, when you think about US policy, do you not try to advocate the interest of the country, US? Shouldn't that be your criteria by which to advocate policy? Fact is that the US can not house everyone in the world who wants to better themselves. If your thoughts are fair, then everyone's application needs to be treated equally. If none are rejected, then this country will double in size within one year. Is that sustainable? How many first generation immigrants actually integrate fully? A lot do not. Your mother didn't. She is the rule among first generation immigrants. As soon as they can afford it, they're back in the old country from which they had to flee. People are in search of their comfort zone the world over, who gets preference and who is ejected? Those that torch their homes and aggravate their neighbors get a home, the civil standing in line do not? How many people can the US take, without a boom in housing demand that makes it impossible for our children to own a home because they are competing against a family of five income earners?
10
Being able to remain in a country that one entered without permission by claiming that one has been persecuted is a privilege. Being allowed to move about freely and enjoy the liberty of that country while waiting to have your request be evaluated and then to be deported if it is denied is a privilege.
A privilege abused is a privilege that one will lose.
19
I studied asylum law about 20 years ago in law school. My recollection is that asylum is predicated on discrimination in your homeland due to who you are. Race, religion, tribe, ethnicity, political party, etc.
Poverty and general crime were NOT grounds for asylum. They just weren’t. It had to be crime against you because of your language, ethnicity, etc.
Unless something major has changed, and I don’t think it has, that remains the rule of law around the world.
Immigration is discretionary and applies to generally bad living conditions.
Asylum is an actual legal right, and is therefore strictly controlled and constrained by a well established body of law.
As such, asylum does not apply to the Central American wave of immigration. It just doesn’t. They’re coming here for a better life and to get away from the drug gangs, and that’s understandable.
But it’s NOT grounds for asylum as a matter of legal right.
So - stop playing fast and loose with definitions. You do yourself and your position no favors by being dishonest.
Furthermore, if we were to send in the military to put an end to the drug gangs, the same people who advocate wide open borders (bc it’s not asylum) would also oppose the military action.
Their demand: don’t fix the problems in Central America, and let all Central Americans move here.
No. Just no. It’s not going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen. You can’t have it both ways.
41
@Vote For Giant Meteor In 2020
In 2014, (3) Judges in the Board of Immigration Appeals approved a domestic violence case by expanding the definition of social groups.
That decision opened the door on gang and domestic violence and its been swinging ever since.
1
When less than 6 million people lived on North America, the native tribes believed there was not enough room for more people. As European migrants arrived, those tribes consistently said, there was not enough room. They complained that the new comers were ruining their way of life and the environment. They fought battles to protect their societies but lost and were overwhelmed and mostly died or were sent to reservations. Today, North America's population is close to 5000 million people. I agree with the American Indians, we were full a long time ago. The United States should end mass immigration.
50
@Michael Green
The US population today is approx 327 million people, so your math is a bit off, but I agree, we are full up. This is now, not then. And American citizens cannot be expected to support huge migrations of low-skills, low-education, needy people. Many of us are struggling.
58
@Michael Green and where did your family come from? Because they came from somewhere during a period when the United States accepted more immigrants.
If you read up on immigration law you will discover that in one of the earlier “America First” eras (supported by the Ku Klux Klan), Congress passed the restrictive Johnson Reed Act in1924. This law left many Jews to die in the Holocaust. My family was lucky enough to get visas.
Climate change will mean many more desperate people trying to move to survive.
Your comments show that you have little grasp of history and our present crisis.
3
Your argument draws the opposite conclusion, considering where you live. If you haven't, try living in one of the many lovely rural parts of the US and tell me there is no room
1
Too many people trying to come who abuse the system. Most that get turned away and not refugees or asylum seekers. They're economic migrants.
President Trump is doing the right thing. This isn't the days of old when we were building a country. We need people who have something to offer, not those expecting to be given something for showing up.
And, the people who broke our laws to get here and remain need to be dealt with accordingly. Up to and including deportation, no matter how long they've been in our country.
128
@Randy L. We are always building the country. We're also living longer, and needing more services to do so. If you offer to pick fruit, cut meat, or perform other jobs that don't appeal to most Americans, at the offered wages, then you're welcome to stay in our growing country.
11
@Randy L.
Asylum seekers are fleeing abuse--seeking the basic human right to live without fear of being murdered, trafficked, or disappeared. They are not the abusers.
According to the Institution on Taxation & Economic Policy, illegal immigrants pay over $11 BILLION a year in taxes in the US. Most will never apply for any form of public assistance, trying to fly under the radar and keep living and working in the US. All they want to be given is opportunity.
The plain fact is that the US economy depends on their labor. The job of building the United States is ongoing. Trump is doing the wrong thing if he truly wants our economy to continue growing.
14
@Anna Kavan
Sounds like work a robot would - and should - do. Why are you still trying to use muscle and meat to do repetitive robot work? Solve these issues with innovation, not by importing more de-facto slaves/cheap labor. You think that's the future?
Maybe in the future, we'll replace our PCs with a thousand cheap laborers doing math in parallel.
What you describe is a sad, backwards country, not a growing, building one. Innovate! Technology is the answer, not warm bodies that will, when inevitably obsolete, need decades of care.
19
Unfortunately, millions have exploited the system. This includes those who falsified their claims for asylum; entered and remain present illegally; as well the employers who exploit them.
If the existing immigration laws had been properly enforced and respected, the problem would not be nearly as bad. Instead, the dwindling middle class sees its taxes increasingly going to finance the education, healthcare, nutrition, etc. of illegal immigrants and their children, rather than to the needs of people for whom they are intended. As a result, some who have genuine grounds for asylum do not gain it and extremist views disrupt and divide society. The U.S., which still legally admits over 1 million immigrants a year, is not the only country to which people can flee. It is, however, the one where people can enter illegally and essentially be rewarded for doing so.
57
I generally hate the phrase 'fair and balanced', as it often means lining up contesting points of view to achieve a meaningless deadlock - but this article is true to the intent. This was a truly great piece.
I too have hated our illegal and callous refusal to give asylum seekers due process, and at the same time been baffled when some democrats want to open the borders and abolish ICE. All my grandparents were immigrants, they all went through the legal process, and they were all granted that opportunity under the law.
We are in trouble as a nation. While we have done wrong things in the past, there was a time when people with common sense and humanity like Ms. Nazario had a stronger voice and more authority in our society. There was at least a counterbalance to cruelty, greed and the other deadly sins. I see little of that balance today - the good seem weak and confused, the bad are filled with ambition and confidence.
I think there is a famous poem about that...
6
My grandparents, like your family, were immigrants, though they did not endure the persecution and violence that yours went through. I am glad our country was here to accept your loved ones and let them live lives in relative peace and to thrive. What has been the problem is not refugees who need and deserve asylum, but those who deliberately violate our borders, and those who abuse asylum laws. I do object to that. It undermines our immigration laws, and it hurts those who truly deserve our protection. My grandfather came to this country -- legally -- in 1910. It was never easy for newcomers, but coming here legally was a good first step, showing honor for our laws.
26
Ms. Nazario's description of the facts is made all the more heartwrenching by her own story.
But in her proscription of solutions she falls horribly short.
Failing to mention that our government's policies in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have made these countries unlivable for their citizens, and that hunger is as good a reason to flee as political imprisonment, her call for deportations of those whose asylum has been denied becomes immoral and inhumane.
A discussion of immigration that fails to discuss why people are fleeing their places of origin is useless.
Yet that discussion is rare to nonexistent. Maybe Ms. Nazario doesn't bring it up because it's not part of her personal experience, as a child of academic parents who could earn middle-class salaries.
If the United States and our corporations stopped plundering and murdering in the Central American countries, people might be able to stay at home. That is what the vast majority wants to do - like Ms. Nazario's own Polish forebears.
17
@Concerned Citizen I was also immediately thinking of how US policies in Central and South America are driving the refugee crisis (not to mention Syria, Afghanistan, etc.).
6
Human history is a migration story.
From the beginning, we have moved in search of water, shelter, safety, opportunity. That’s what we do. We move for opportunities. We move to ensure survival.
Every person in the United States came from somewhere else first, even our Native Americans, who have the greatest claim, if one is to be had, on our land.
America, as a place, as an idea, is the land of opportunity and safety. Our ancestors knew that. Families at the border today know that.
9
@S The U.S. is only a land of safety if the people agree to the Rule of Law. There are still many places here that are not safe for individuals, because of the numerous individuals that have not agreed and continue to operate as if they were in the old country.
10
This is a compelling piece. I spent 7 years working with the poor in Honduras. The level of abuse against women was shocking. The birth rate was astronomical. The poverty was grinding. If the US is to take in Central Americans why can't we just integrate these countries into the US as part of the Union? That way if we really want to improve their lives the taxpayer will have the land, labor and capital to do so. What culture is being preserved by keeping Honduras or Guatemala or Mexico separate from the US? Where I work most everybody speaks Spanish. Most of the children in my children's schools speak Spanish as their primary language. I encourage my kids to learn Spanish. If US rule of law was introduced to these countries prosperity would follow. The US is multicultural and non exclusive......unlike Mexico, for example.
1
@AS Do you think the sovereign nations of Mexico, Honduras, or Guatemala want to become US colonies or US states?
2
Central American countries & Mexico are sovereign nations they cannot be “integrated.” For many years citizens of those nations worked in the US—l worked with them. They sent money home. But globalization damaged the economy and technology replaced people and not in a good way. Latin American countries lack the rule of law and their political systems are corrupt—those problems are endemic, Now the US has those problems as well. The US must legislate and establish workable policies for immigration. Right now it’s a mess.
4
@AS
Mexico doesn't have a culture that values clean drinking water and working sewage treatment stations. The age of consent can be as low as 12. I don't want Mexico to be part of the US. Mexico does not want to be part of the US.
8
This is a powerful piece of writing.
I do not know enough about policy making to agree or disagree with certain positions posed here. But at 71 I hope I've seen enough to believe that America under Trump and his gang is acting without mercy or justice.
Conservatives have taken the notion and term "legal" to an extreme degree -- with Trump alone setting the only final standard. Liberals often lose track of legal under the concept of broad humanity. Both positions confuse morality, politics, and law -- without any valuable outcome.
We are not moving in a healthy direction, no matter what one's political bent. As we move toward white nationalism, despite changing demographics, racism and violence will increase. We might be making America 'great' -- but we're making a great and cataclysmic mistake in the process, one that'll take a few generations to correct, if ever.
7
There is one major major red flag here. Ms Nazario writes that Democrats need to stop supporting "open borders". This is a dangerous untruth. No one supports "open borders". "Open borders" is a scare tactic from right wing propaganda. Democrats support providing refuge to refugees, a system of legal entry to those qualified, and a system that does not send legitimate refugees back to their deaths (which would effectively close the "loophole"). I've spent my life teaching English to refugees and helping them learn how to navigate in their new world, so it was a big disappointment to read this old "open border" lie repeated here.
20
Well, I have spoken to friends and family on the “left” and they do favor open borders. Or so they say. After probing their statements I usually find that they are not so open. So the statement is not too much of a red flag.
12
@mary bardmess
Sanctuary cities, lax border control, not deporting anybody, amnesty, chain migration, birthright citizenship and birth tourism, decriminalizing illegal entry, free healthcare for illegals, abolishing ICE, catch and release, and on and on IS defacto open borders no matter what the left says. It gave us trump and may again if they don’t come to their senses.
17
@mary bardmess
Just to touch on Elizabeth Warren’s “plan,” even the leftist Mother Jones found that the Democrats were the party of de facto open borders. The article is entitled “Are Democrats now the Party of Open Borders?” and comes to the following conclusion: “it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders.”
10
The quick answer to your question is No! America would not save you because Americans would not know your story.
What has to happen is that Ms. Nazario’s story was played out on a world stage, it has to become American history for Americans to learn its lessons.
In the 1930s people were not trying to game the system. Today 90 percent are. That is the difference.
77
@Snowball
and your source is, Fox News?
7
@Bibi
Possibly informed by observation.
2
Hundreds of Millions is a bar too high and that is how many can make a claim. United States is not magic soil. Rule of law and adherence to the rule of law is why we have opportunity. We cannot take in the entire world of those who come from places where they do not have Rule of Law. So, no, we would NOT take you today if you were in a mass of millions trying to get here. We cannot do that and survive so solve your problems where you are born or learn to live in misery.
22
This idea that the US can absorb all of the excess Third World population and should do so because a poem is carved on the Statue of Liberty has delivered an existential crisis. The legal immigration system is crazy enough, welcoming over a million every year with no skills, no English, fragmenting the culture, draining public services and handouts. Now we have to accept hundreds of thousands more who are illegal economic migrants posing as refugees, breaking international law by passing through safe countries until they reach the land of milk and honey. It's enough to make me vote for an intellectually absent, erratic, impulsive, narcissistic candidate. And I will, for this reason alone.
70
@Grunt : it's a poem -- it was never a law nor social policy.
I for one am willing to donate $100 RIGHT THIS MINUTE towards a fund to have that lousy poem (The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus) scraped off the base of the Statue of Liberty!
Who is with me????
11
@Grunt
I agree with your assessment of the situation but voting for a thug is not the answer.
Trump should be in jail instead of the WH where he is destroying and ridiculing the rule of law. Do you think that 's a fair tradeoff for stopping a few million immigrants who have broken into our Country as opposed to a man who is breaking our Country and, is very possibly, being underwritten by Putin?
Anyone who votes for DJT does not believe in freedom and fair play.
3
This is a bizarre piece. It equates state sponsored atrocities with people who are essentially economic migrants dealing with gang violence. There is no equivalence. It's about time that we crack down on phony "asylum" seekers from the south.
78
Bravo Ms. Nazario. Many years ago the United States was referred to as a shiny beacon of democracy to the rest of the world. Although our light of morality dimmed in the past, today it has gone out. The blathering criminal in the White House on a daily rant is one cause, the republicans failing to care, and the sycophants who will follow against their own interests. Selfish and or ignorant people have put us in this situation. It will take a herculean effort to change our course. I am voting blue, I hope you will too.
4
Americans do plenty of things that are illegal every single day, some mundane, some not so mundane, but we don't deport or incarcerate everyone who ever so much as jaywalks. To hear some tell it there are no Americans who ever break laws and those who do are always caught and punished. That's blatantly and outrageously untrue. You don't believe me? Drive through town at the posted speed limit. Chances are you'll get run off the road eventually. It's still illegal and dangerous so instead we cherry pick what we think of as dangerous to our nation. I've known many, many illegal aliens I'm happy to call friends with very little qualms about allowing them to remain in this nation.
6
@Martino
Because a citizen speeding is analogous to a non-citizen entering w/o permission and refusing to leave, all the while taking jobs and resources that should be going to citizens...
11
@Lilo Speeding, causing untold accidents and carnage isn't somehow a big drain on the nation? Ok then.
Syria is in dire need right now, the US should put pressure on Putin to stop the bombing of Idlib; 800.000 people are trying to escape with nowhere to go, no food, no facilities, and zero temperatures.
12
I wish that everyone could have the benefit of living in America, but short of inviting the entire populations of South Sudan and Yemen, who are suffering far worse than our Hispanic illegal immigrants, we cannot do so without harming ourselves.
And yes, our covenant to help our fellow Americans must mean a lower level of compassion for other world citizens.
33
That linked study about one third of Hondurans planning on coming here has some more interesting findings:
33% of Hondurans, 24% of Salvadorans, and 18% of Guatamalans plan on migrating.
46% of young people surveyed plan on doing so.
Economics is the driver for 71% of Guatamalans, 67% of Hondurans, and 50% of Salvadorans.
Only 3% said reuniting with relatives was the driver.
75% have relatives who've been here for 10 years or more.
I find those numbers shocking.
88
@Talbot : let's deport their relatives back to Central America.
CLOSE THE BORDER!
Deport the illegals who are here -- no exceptions!
That's how you solve this crisis.
10
I’ve thought the same thing for the past few (Trumpian) years - My grandparents and their cousins would be denied entry today fleeing genocide in Armenia (1918) due to our acquiescence towards Turkey’s hegemony in their region. We (still) want them to buy our weapons systems (another reason we turn a blind eye.)
4
There is a total lack of appreciation in these comments for the US’ outsize role in creating the violence and poverty that persists in Central America.
Guatemala had a democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA in 1954. The majority of guns in these nations continue to come from the US. The drug trade and its accompanying violence exists because of US drug consumption. Throughout the Cold War, and now in the Drug War, we have promoted corrupt, violent dictatorships and militarization instead of education and human rights in this region.
In 1954, the United Fruit Company (aka Chiquita) just wasn’t interested in paying its fair share, ending its monopoly, and seeing the Guatemalan people benefit from their own land’s resources. I could write 1 million more examples but the point is we blame these nations for their instability but imagine having a nation with the military might of the US doing everything in its power to make sure your fledgling nation remains corrupt and in the pocket of American financial interests.
This is the sad truth of the US’ role across Latin America. We need to better understand our nation’s foreign policy, demand changes, assist refugees, support reasonable immigration laws, and respect due process for amnesty seekers.
I’d also like to mention that most of our ancestors were economic immigrants...so stop repeating the tired old trope of once I’m here, well, now it’s time to close the door!
25
@SouthernMed : MY ancestors were fleeing religious persecution -- the ones who stayed behind were all murdered by Nazis.
We were NOT economic migrants.
Also, whatever wrongdoing happened in Guatemala or Central American IN 1954 (!!!) was over 65 years ago.
It is not forcing 18 year olds from Central America to steal across our borders, or to lie to immigration officials. It was before their grandparents were born!
10
All too often we hear the familiar refrain of "compromise." To that, I say...
Define "compromise."
Is compromise "these people facing genocide come in but those people facing genocide stay out?" Because that leads to ridiculous situations like "wet-foot, dry-foot" where Lady Liberty looks more like Lady Luck as hope is doled out to only those who are able to reach land (provided they came from Cuba; Haitians need not apply).
Is compromise "only the first 10,000 people fleeing genocide"?
Is compromise "only Jewish people fleeing religious oppression"? Syrians and Uyghurs and Indian Muslims need not apply"?
Is compromise "only people fleeing government-sponsored genocide"?
The poem written at the base of the Statue of Liberty makes no such compromises. And if we continue down this road, perhaps it is time to decommission the Statue of Liberty.
If we compromise, we compromise with tyrants. We compromise with the lives of innocents. We compromise what we, as a nation, stand for.
If we compromise, we should scrap the Statue of Liberty and recycle the materials into "The Wall."
And let THAT be the face we show the world.
5
“My father’s name was Mahafud, which means protected by God.”
Here is one of the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
Let’s make it personal.
Am I protected by God? I don’t know.
The basic axiom of the faith is if I were a good person and a believer, I would be protected by God.
How could I know that I am a believer?
I must implement the Ten Commandments at all cost. If I don’t implement them, I don’t believe in them, and I am not a true believer.
Whose sole prerogative is to determine whether I truthfully implement the Ten Commadnments?
Only the Almighty has such authority.
Since I am not perfect, I don’t know if I implement those Commandments correctly.
I should never take God’s name in vain. If I repeat God’s words, I repeat them to teach the others around me, not to insinuate that I might be better than anybody else.
If I claim for myself to be protected by God, do I imply that the others aren’t?
Do I have right to claim to be a believer that is by default protected by God?
Certainly not!
In that case I would be acting in the name of God what is the worst kind of blasphemy.
3
I wonder how much revenue those makeshift courts at the border are making? Filing a case is not free of charge, it is actually quite expensive but still a price people with no hope to get a asylum are willing to pay naively thinking they’ll get fair treatment. Add that to the sham!
1
when i was young in school we were taught about how this country was a melting pot of all kinds of different people and that it made this country strong. It made me proud.
Now the melting pot now longer exists. I no longer feel proud.
12
It no longer exists? Have you checked the demographic makeup of the US today vs even 20 years ago?
13
Well, there is a reason that every country has borders. You cannot let all the people who want to come the US come in. No wonder so many people who probably don't like many of DJT's policies, vote for him just because of his rational immigration policy.
45
As a child of immigrants, I am touched by the story. However, the US has become a dumping ground of many who should never have been accepted. The strict rules of immigration are necessary and should never be relaxed. My family was only allowed to immigrate here upon proof of their being sponsored by their families here in the US. We simply cannot take every single immigrant from every single country that wants to live here. And as long as we have American people here that are homeless and hungry, I agree that we need to take care of our own first. Selfish but honest. Illegal immigrants are pushing us to the limits and must be stopped. And yes, sent back home.
49
My representatives agree with you. You say we are not objecting to the policies. What,besides pushing for this bill, do you suggest?
Our protests don't make the news, when they do, they are held up as successful results (the president got the libs upset).
And yes, this is wrong, we are trying, our border patrol is out of control, but I for one feel powerless. Vote blue.
2
I think many are unsympathetic to the refugees because, as has been pointed out, we don’t take care of our own citizens so it’s understandable that people resent those trying to come here. At the same time, people don’t seem to understand history. Those corrupt countries didn’t get that way without U.S. help. We have been known to send in the CIA to get rid of democratically elected leaders in order to further the aims of American business. On the other side of the world — Iran — the nation’s problems can be traced back to U.S. interference as well.
13
The irony of this Op Ed piece is that she destroys her argument when she mentions that her family COULD NOT seek refuge in the United States, despite the threats to their safety, in th 1930's because of the same America First nativist ideology that Trump espouses today. Her family was fortunate to find help from Argentina, much of my family perished in the Holocaust. Some of the few who survived the Holocaust and were homeless and living in Displaced Persons camps after the war were still denied refugee status in the late 1940's despite having relatives in NY willing to sponsor them.
7
Japan takes in about ten refugees a year. No need for America to take in much more. Shift to a points based immigration system awarding language skills, education and technical skills. We don't need tens of millions of poor migrants when we already have massive housing shortages and huge homeless encampments developing.
41
Based on the callous comments to this moving article, the answer to the question “Will the US save my life today?” is a clear NO.
2
Thank you so much for sharing your fafmily's story. What should be added is that added to the horror of this administration actions on the border, it eliminated foreign aid assistance to the source countries. Thereby adding to the misery.
3
Ms. Nazario, Thank you for a though provoking and important story. We have room for legal immigrants seeking asylum for assaults against their lives. They will enrich our country. And we do need a sane system to vet fairly with due process immigrants seeking entry to our country. Trump has shut down any such process. As I read the comments of many, I found myself wondering if they would also have turned back the ships with Jewish refugees and Jewish children. My home city of Durham NC is very diverse. There is no majority race. We have a significant population of Latino immigrants. And guess what—we are thriving.
12
It doesn't do any good to ask, or even demand, compassion from people don't feel any, and who don't want to feel any. The only thing to do is to elect replacements.
30
@Stephen Merritt -- But, millions of Americans feel no compassion either and will vote to keep Trump in office. Our entire immigration system is built on racism. Not fairness. Not compassion. Not common sense. When rich people want to gain citizenship, it's done. Wealthy foreigners who want a US visa can buy one for $250,000. No problem. But, poor people are turned away without even a hearing. That's the US immigration system for you.
3
This country needs immigrants who can contribute to our GDP, not those who would strain our resources.
The U.K. will implement a points based immigration system whereby immigrants who can contribute to their economy are welcome. As I understand it, the system will welcome those with education and needed skills. Good idea.
Of course, illegal immigrants are a problem here since we have many miles of land borders, particularly our southern border with Mexico.
26
u are mixing two different things, the UK point system is on attracting highly educated migrants, the refugee policy of any country is one of compassion borne out of the ashes of the world wars where all countries agree to take in migrants who are fleeing from persecution and thus recognised under international law as refugees.
we must not lose sight of the latter - because one day when the dice are turned against us, be it another world war or dictactorial regime or climate change and we become refugees, that no country close their doors on us
10
@Bill
"This country needs immigrants who can contribute"
An immigrant with a PhD isn't going to devotedly care for your elderly widowed mother when you are at work.
People who reject so-called "unskilled" immigrants seem completely unaware of what "skills" a community needs to function,
17
@Bill refugees and immigrants of all skill level contribute to the economy. If all "illegal immigrants" suddenly disappeared from the country, our food system would completely collapse. Even if you don't deem migrant labor as "skilled," it doesn't make it any less important to our economy.
Additionally, studies conducted by our very own government have shown again and again that refugees are a boon to the economy, and contribute more back in taxes and labor than they receive in public assistance in their first year here. So this country already had what you say it needed - immigrants who could contribute to our GDP without straining our resources.
As someone who spent years working in refugee resettlement, it's really damaging to public perception of refugees and immigrants when there are people like you who don't understand the system trying to make recommendations, based on nothing but an outdated economic model and xenophobia.
7
Ironic we allow the free movement of factories/jobs and capital across borders but not the people who lose their jobs when that capital and jobs cross those borders.
Why is that? Who benefits form this system? Certainly not the working people.
29
In general I am against immigration, because it leads to land development and reduced habitat for non-human species, and in the case of immigration to the U.S., an approximately threefold increase in carbon emissions per individual. In addition, first generation immigrants have more children on average than native-born people. The lives of humans should not the only lives to be considered in regard to immigration policy.
24
@Kim human beings migrate. Just like the birds, like the Monarch butterflies, it is our history, our tradition, and in our DNA. The borders are manufactured political ideas held together by weapons and strength. There is nothing natural about them. But this is how we decided to organize ourselves. If what you seek is balance between human beings and nature and the animals then reduced child bearing is the key along with reduced technology and transportation. But rarely do restrictionist environmentalists advocate for one or the other--instead they advocate for kicking desperate people out.
9
@Kim
Your statement is disturbing to me. Human suffering must always take priority over concerns such as those being saved potentially increasing their carbon footprint.
1
@Kim What you are criticizing is 1. that not everyone on the earth should adopt American lifestyle. Because our carbon footprint is 3x others. Otherwise not-immigrated ones will have to live and 2. It's ok to develop land and reduce habitat for non-human somewhere but Not in my backyard policy.
2
This is a really well told story and thoughtful critique on the personal impact of our immigration/asylum laws. I don’t believe Democrats want a sensible immigration reform because they like to use it as a campaign issue, cherry-picking certain story and aspects while ignoring others and of course defunding many programs and sticking the border states with the problem. Republicans have decided to use it as a law and order political issue - period, showing little compassion.
With so many poorly governed countries or outright vicious regimes it’s going to be difficult and messy to get it right every day. I was disappointed that you didn’t extend your article to cover the immigration platforms of the presidential candidates. I would like to hear your thoughts on their proposals.
10
It's more politically acceptable to take in refugees if illegal immigration is properly restricted.
I'm a first generation American. My parents and siblings came here. Legally. I was born here.
What we need is control over the flow of people who come. California has a housing shortage problem. We're short at least two million units. Guess how many illegal immigrants have settled in California since 2000. Two million.
Of course we can admit refugees, but we need control over the flow. People should not be here for years waiting for a yea or nay. It's more politically acceptable to take in refugees if illegal immigration is properly restricted.
Every wealthy country on earth is struggling to deal with this issue, not just the US.
173
Illegal immigration has to be curtailed significantly, and there is a strong, democratic demand for this - see the 2016 election. We need to acknowledge that a significant number of illegal aliens aren't simply crossing the southern border - there are plenty of visa overstays. We need much better monitoring systems in place so that regardless of where one enters the US from, they are held accountable to our immigration laws - no one gets to skip the line, whether they do so by entering on a student visa, or whether they benefit from having a land border with the US. There are plenty of people with whom we do not share a land border who would love to just walk in, but cannot - it's a long swim.
The question remains - why does so much of the news media seem to be dead set on pushing an open borders, leniency toward illegal immigration narrative, when there is such widespread support for addressing the issue decisively?
136
@Jeff
News: Something to make people read, like the kids hacking the newspapers in the streets of the big cities in the 1920s. The more sensationalism the better the papers sell. A paper calling for just immigration laws, good laws to keep illegals out, probably would not cause the knee-jerking reaction to buy the paper and form an opinion.
Unfortunately, news (papers, radio, and TV) have long brainwashed us to read (view, listen, etc.) to the controversial, not the real or just.
To see that big-time, watch the questions that are given to the candidates for the debate. The moderators are not interested in their different viewpoints, because they are much the same (boring), but trying to get the candidates into a wrestling or a boxing match.
5
@Jeff -- NO ONE is advocating open borders! That is a lie pushed by the same people who think it is fine to put babies in cages and deny them basic services.
3
@Seabiscute
Actually, Libertarians strongly believe in open borders because they love the cheap labor which lowers wages for businesses.
While Democrats don't necessarily advocate for open borders, most of the candidates wanted to decriminalize border crossing, thus incentivizing more would be immigrants to come with impunity.
6
We could easily have a same and humane immigration system, but then the politicians wouldn't be able to use immigration as an election issue. None of them want to fix anything. They just want reelection.
30
The main issue is that the members of Congress set immigration policy, and they are refusing to do so. Because they are afraid of their constituents; because they are afraid of the president; because they are unwilling to work together and compromise; mostly because immigration, both legal and illegal, is an extremely effective tool to use to frighten and further polarize people. If Congress did its job and crafted an immigration bill, they would lose that tool.
Stop reelecting members of Congress who are unwilling or unable to do their jobs.
64
@Patricia
That means voting all Republican Congressmen out of office.
Vote in November.
6
You are correct, and I always vote.
1
Sonia your story is a beautiful example of what has made our country so great. Thank you for writing it.
Your story changed me. I support a sane immigration policy, but after reading your story, I will listen to the canidates and vote for a president that is supporting an immigration policy that is more moderate, and especially not heartless like the one Stephen Miller's boss is implementing.
24
Whenever immigration is discussed, we must also remember that the idea of "get in line" means an ever shifting goal line which often takes decades. That’s a heckuva long line.
13
@Equality Mexicans wait no less than ten years, often 20.
2
Very beautiful, well thought-through and moving essay, thank you!
I would like to read more of Sonia Nazario's ideas about what constitutes a sane and humane immigration policy -- something that no country I'm aware of has succeeded in creating.
18
This is a phenomenal article. Thanks for telling your story Ms. Nazario!
10
thank you for telling the truth, Ms. Nazario. You do it well and with conviction. I hear you.
8
@BQ I loved the story that she told about her family!
Thank you for this article. Will call my senators and rep today to urge passage of Refugee Protection Act.
14
I am stunned at the anti-immigration/anti-immigrant letters that this essay has provoked. Nearly every comment as of my writing this response attacks immigration into the US
America has been awash in anti-intellectualism for over a century. If it were not for immigrants from Europe in the 1930s-1960s, and then from Asia in the 1960s into the 2010s, one could easily argue that the US would be a second rate power due to lack of engineering and computer expertise.
Teddy Roosevelt hid his book-a-day reading habit as he thought it might hurt his chances of being re-elected. During Al Gore's run for president, it was not unusual to hear that he was "too smart to be president." And of course, there is the current disregard for climate science, immunizations, etc -- a disregard that is scoffed at in western Europe.
Immigrants, from farm workers to engineers, make this country stronger by their talent and hard work. Yes, we need to regulate immigration, and not in our current haphazard way
Thomas Friedman wrote an article months ago in these pages: High Wall with a Wide Gate (or a title rather similar). This is what we need. And we need the people that would become Americans because of that wide gate
79
@Steven Shocked? Not even close. Saddened? Absolutely. America has rarely welcomed immigrants, legal or otherwise especially of they aren't more or less mirror images of the people in charge.
One could hope we've gotten better with time but evidence of that is thin at best. And when we grow fearful, progress often vanishes in the blink of an eye. Think of the Jewish refugees that we allowed to perish faced with the isolationism brought on by the Great Depression and pretense we could avoid eh Nazis by sticking our heads in the sand.
All it takes today is a little nationalism, a little populism and a bunch of little red hats. I could blame the xenophobic racism of Stephen Miller, but the White House doesn't seem to have ever found a better piece of the puzzle to finish this Administration's jig saw policy of fear and anger.
4
@Steven
"America has been awash in anti-intellectualism for over a century. If it were not for immigrants from Europe in the 1930s-1960s, and then from Asia in the 1960s into the 2010s, one could easily argue that the US would be a second rate power due to lack of engineering and computer expertise. Teddy Roosevelt hid his book-a-day reading habit as he thought it might hurt his chances of being re-elected. During Al Gore's run for president, it was not unusual to hear that he was "too smart to be president." And of course, there is the current disregard for climate science, immunizations, etc -- a disregard that is scoffed at in western Europe."
Totally agree. I wrote a comment to an article on Elizabeth Warren saying pretty much the same thing. The country is so anti-intellectual, she felt the need to try to pretend she was a "regular American", and opened herself up to the label of "inauthentic". It drives me nuts!
3
@Steven America, the USA is already a second rate power. The dumb have prevailed. History shows that this happens. I got out 16 yrs ago, more and more recent grads are coming to Mexico from the US and in fact attending foreign Universities, staying there. The USA has been in decline since 1980 with Reagan, after a very relatively brief bout on the international stage post WW1 and 2. Severe decline accelerated in the 2000 stolen election and is completing itself now with this horror unimagined even by the Bushes.
2
America will always have immigration; legal and illegal. This reality will never change.
The debate today is enforcement of current laws, policies and procedures. They are a patchwork of bandages covering a festering wound. Congress is unwilling to redress this wound.
Like taxes, which mark a civilized society, we must through Congress determine how civilized we want to be relative to immigration. To me being dysfunctional is not a mark of a civilized society.
We can only communicate with our representative and both of our senators to demand a sound, practical solution. With hope they will represent our collective morals; the morals of an immigrate nation.
Wake up Congress! Represent!
17
Such a heart wrenching story, stories, beautiful lives saved and lost. This all makes you wonder how best we can help.
To really make a positive impact and save as many people as possible we will need a true world leader president again. The numbers of people coming to America and elsewhere fearing for their lives will only increase exponentially. Thus, we must also help build up and support safe countries, establish strong relationships with those with non corrupt governments, in addition to taking in immigrants. And we need plans in our American cities how to best integrate new comers into communities, so that they may become the next leaders in America.
29
Sadly, human migration will only increase in the coming years. Diminishing resources, expanding populations and climate change will become a trifecta of pain increasing pressure to leave bad situations. It can be failure of government to protect its citizens, crop failures or loss of employment opportunity or a mix of all these things.
Our current administration favors cruelty as its immigration policy. If we can make the entry as bad as the situations of the past from which migrants have fled, we can put them in a netherworld neither here nor there. But whether it suits the Steven Millers of this country or not, these are real human beings and they still exist.
What would Jesus do? Clearly, not this.
70
@Doug McNeill
From your description, hundreds of millions are and will be in need of our shelter. But the pressing question is not what Jesus would do, it’s what would Doug McNeill do.
6
@Doug McNeill Jesus is well represented in the Patriarchal Latin American countries from whence many immigrants come.
Perhaps indoctrination into victim/savior mindsets rather than education in critical thinking is part of the problem.
It seems to me that the very very wealthy church could do more to alleviate many problems at their root.
Churches everywhere should be taxed to fund education. Ignorance, misogyny and poverty are not virtues.
11
Yes.
The answer is yes. The people of our country would welcome you with open arms as you flee from imminent threats.
What I worry about now is whether we have the empathy to pivot to also welcoming climate refugees. It's one thing to understand the point of a gun. It's another thing altogether to grasp a rising sea, a newly arid landscape, crops no longer growing so there's no food.
20
@Jeff S. Climate change. Most Americans don't even see it coming. No water to drink no food to eat. You're going to need more than a wall. Remember - the most dangerous person is not the one with the gun, it's the one with nothing left to lose. Tick tock.
3
@Jeff S.
For the US to "welcome climate refugees" would mean taking in whole other populous countries! We can't. It's a nice idea, very kind of you to think of that, but simply not feasible.
41
Sonia Nazario,I will print your Opinion Column later today and read it carefully. At this moment, 12:42 CET in Sweden, I have scanned your column and read the 3 comments and 1 reply in print and write this on that basis.
You use the term refugee as do all of the comment writers. Here in Sweden, the designation most often used in the past few years is asylysökande - asylum seeking or seeker, a term defined by UNHCR followed by this line: At UNHCR, we believe that everyone has a right to seek asylum from persecution..."
I write from 19 y as a volunteer at the Linköping SE Red Cross, where I have met at least 2,000 individuals, most designated as asylum seekers. In 2015, Sweden allowed more asylum seekers per 100,000 population to enter and have their cases reviewed. This percentage was higher even than in Germany and for the majority who entered far above the US.
All these individuals are initially given support by the Swedish government at a level and for a length of time far greater than for any in America, I believe. Sweden has become a better country thanks to many of those who came earler and are still coming.
The obvious "but" is that this has had a profound effect on Swedish politics leading to continous efforts to shape new policies.
In Sweden, in contrast with my USA, "our own" are being taken care of.
You, Sonia Nazario, end with: "We can have an immigration policy that is sane and humane."
How? When?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
II.
50
@Larry Lundgren Well said my fellow Scandinavian!-S. Tveskov. Tak for volunteering and for Sweden taking in asylum seekers!
4
@ST - Thanks, I guess I could say Sweden by way of Connecticut since I spent enough time at Yale and in Deep River - Hamburg - Old Lyme mapping the geology that I got a Ph.D. and wound up as Fulbright Lecturer in Geology, University of Oulu, Finland, the year that led me to change what I did and wind up in retirement in Sweden.
My years at the Red Cross have been one of the great experiences in my life, all these people from everywhere have given me more than anyone who has never done that can imagine.
Larry
2
@Larry Lundgren It will be interesting to see if Sweden remains a “high trust” society over the next twenty years or retreats from its generous welfare state, as crime and violence increase in areas where the populace show no signs of integrating with larger Swedish society.
10
My grandparents fled the Russia pogroms in the early 1900’s - the US was a safe haven.
They immigrated to America and we’re naturalized through the legal process.
There are approximately 10-12 million immigrants living in the US who have been waiting years and years - some for decades to be naturalized - to become US citizens.
It’s not up to the President - it’s not up to Trump!
It’s up to Congress!! Our dysfunctional Congress has allowed these individuals to continue living in fear of deportation- continue being denied basic benefits - they need a process to allow them citizenship.
Only Congress can do that - Obama, with a Democratic Congress failed to pass legislation to naturalize these millions of Americans. The writer fails to mention that.
As the writer points out, there are many oppressed people who would like to take refuge here - but it must be done legally. First we need to address the problem with the millions that are already here.
Congress needs to act.
32
@JMS
Your grandparents fled pograms, but many of today's unauthorized migrants were motivated to come here for higher paying jobs.
In 1986, President Reagan offered just under 3 million unauthorized migrants a path to citizenship, and promised to end all further illegal entry. The problem with this was that offering an amnesty encouraged many more people to move here illegally. Despite Reagan's promise to end illegal immigration, we now have many times the number of unauthorized migrants who were here in 1986. The PEW Trust estimates the number, in 2016, at about 11 million. Professors at Yale and MIT thought this number was too high so they conducted their own extensive research. Using new data streams, they realized (to their chagrin) that the number, in 2016, was over 22 million.
And since 2016, many more have arrived.
If we again offer another amnesty (even if we declare we will simultaneously end illegal immigration), we will inadvertently be encouraging many more to come here, without papers, on the expectation that they, too, will eventually be granted an amnesty.
5
Thank you Ms Nazario for sharing your family’s personal story of immigration. We are fortunate that your family came to the US and that you were able to pursue your career in journalism. I am a Kansas native who ended up teaching ESL and Spanish in Hawaii for 30 years. I used Enrique’s journey to teach my university students about the current crisis in Central America and at our southern border. I am now traveling in Chile, and I see the effects of violent social unrest, as well as the plight of Venezuela’s refugees who are struggling to survive here. Many young people ask me about opportunities in the US and how they might immigrate. I warn them of the current Trump immigration policies that turn dreams into nightmares for so many immigrants. I hope you continue to share the moving stories of immigrants with the American public.
63
@Teresa Lane
Thank you for this thoughtful comment and to Ms. Nazario for her article. I agree parents should not risk their children's lives by moving.
I looked at the picture quite closely, I'm not sure I have ever seen such happened radiating from peoples faces.
I wonder if the US government might do more to allocate foreign aid to human rights abuses. I'm not sure this approach is taken, or just given lip service.
3
US foreign aid through USAID has remained relatively constant. See figures below. What has changed drastically is the process of reviewing asylum applications and treatment of those at our southern border.
(Source: U.S. Foreign Aid by Implementing Agency FY2012-FY2017, Reported in $US millions)
2012: 18,292.09
2013: 17,315.93
2014: 17,822.82
2015: 19,412.06
2016: 19,358.09
2017: 20,548.50
We live in a crowded and interconnected world. The global population is three and a half times greater than in the '30s, and much more mobile. And millions of refugees and billions of people are in countries where opportunities are considerably more restricted than in America or western Europe. One family story, even a stirring and compelling one like the author's, cannot fully apply across such a vast and diverse scale.
Existing refugee policies, which Trump has been shredding, do indeed have origins in "never again" responses to the horrors of the Holocaust and the millions displaced in the wake of World War II. But those policies are longer as clear-cut and easy to apply as they were when many advanced countries needed labor, and when international travel was more difficult.
A core challenge in America now is the imbalance between the branches of the federal government. Trump is ruling by fiat, rather than executing laws duly passed by Congress. Correcting that derailment -not addressed in this column at all- should be a top priority.
It is also important to distinguish between legislation that would reinforce basic refugee policy from that which would alter it. Preventing "the government from forcing people to apply for asylum in other countries they passed through on the way" (per the proposal supported here) would -at least on its face- upend the longstanding principle that genuine refugees must stop where once they have refuge, and not comparison-shop for it.
50
@Sage
Correction: "...those policies are NO longer as clear-cut..."
1