So I ran this query by Kha (my boo) this evening...and she first said "I don't really know how to talk about it either", but then she (of course) had a lot to say, and one thing she pointed out that I hadn't really thought about: the issue of the US refusing to deal with the situation of the people who have lived here for a long time and…
So I ran this query by Kha (my boo) this evening...and she first said "I don't really know how to talk about it either", but then she (of course) had a lot to say, and one thing she pointed out that I hadn't really thought about: the issue of the US refusing to deal with the situation of the people who have lived here for a long time and don't have a legal status, or have a permanent limbo status like DACA. Their status jams up the system, since they can't sponsor or help with any of the legal pathways available....if we dealt with the huge number of people already living here, that would potentially shift the number of folks coming through the border via land, since they'd have viable other pathways. (and obviously so-called chain migration is a republican boogeyperson, but...)
Please thank Kia for this! I think this is a great example of taking a policy step that I do agree with but that I've often heard articulated, but from a distanced, technocratic perspective ("we have to reduce the backlog," which at worst is expressed as an "in order to not incentivize migrants to come, claim asylum and stay indefinitely"). I'm imagining the same policy, but explained from the perspective of immigrant families who are actually stuck in the system!
Totally-- and I think part of that explanation is just the number of folks that are like "if you only gave us access, we have so many resources to help and care for people!" But as a shadow population, the options are really limited.
So I ran this query by Kha (my boo) this evening...and she first said "I don't really know how to talk about it either", but then she (of course) had a lot to say, and one thing she pointed out that I hadn't really thought about: the issue of the US refusing to deal with the situation of the people who have lived here for a long time and don't have a legal status, or have a permanent limbo status like DACA. Their status jams up the system, since they can't sponsor or help with any of the legal pathways available....if we dealt with the huge number of people already living here, that would potentially shift the number of folks coming through the border via land, since they'd have viable other pathways. (and obviously so-called chain migration is a republican boogeyperson, but...)
Please thank Kia for this! I think this is a great example of taking a policy step that I do agree with but that I've often heard articulated, but from a distanced, technocratic perspective ("we have to reduce the backlog," which at worst is expressed as an "in order to not incentivize migrants to come, claim asylum and stay indefinitely"). I'm imagining the same policy, but explained from the perspective of immigrant families who are actually stuck in the system!
Totally-- and I think part of that explanation is just the number of folks that are like "if you only gave us access, we have so many resources to help and care for people!" But as a shadow population, the options are really limited.
*Kha
[autocorrect mistake!]