Immigration lawyer chiming in. This prompt is... in my lane.
Another substacker I follow, who also happens to be an immigration researcher wrote a post that immigration dialog has moved out of the realm of fact based, routine, paper filing, processing of how people get in and out and has moved int…
Immigration lawyer chiming in. This prompt is... in my lane.
Another substacker I follow, who also happens to be an immigration researcher wrote a post that immigration dialog has moved out of the realm of fact based, routine, paper filing, processing of how people get in and out and has moved into a specifically wedge political issue to be used for party ideology, and that framing resonated with me.
There is so much misinformation about the border and how immigration actually works and often the dialog get pushed into box of how do we "feel" about people immigrating and whether they have a right or a reason to immigrate, when really we should actually have anything to say about that at all. It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately and that there are options for people to migrate saftely and efficiently (there is a whole set of law and treaties for this). Right now we don't have a functional safe system, since we underfunded the immigration processing agencies, dredged their staff in the *rump administration, and reduced ways for people to migrate or even just visit the U.S. We've manufactured our our border crisis, and more and more people don't have any other options than to just show up and "get in the line".
I wonder if we started talking more about what makes an immigration system functional and why can't our elected pull that off, if it would take the focus off folks just trying to use the freedom to move and more on the people who won't let them.
Very, very happy to clear the floor for an immigration lawyer in our community :). This is really helpful for me to read. I think the line about how "It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately..." No need to reply to this, but how would you respond though to the conservative counterpoint "well, we can get on board with that, but we're still concerned with people coming here surreptitiously, because they're [insert one: jumping the line, not participating in the process, etc.]." I have some initial thoughts there, but would love your more informed perspective if you're up for it.
A couple thoughts, if the concern is people not fitting into the process, or not participating in the processes, why are conservative legislators (or all of them right now actually) so adament about shutting the processes down? Shouldn't they want to clean it up? Processing at the border is one big line. People are sitting in that line, becasue all the other shorter, quicker lines are closed out, restricted or so severly backlogged from neglect that there are no other options. We have funneled people into sitting at the border, where they either get impatient or face safety concerns, and try to cross a river or desert, jump into the trunk of someones car or pay coyotes.
The logical explaination seems to craft a better system, than to place blame on the outliers of a system that doesn't work, because as the processes continue to deteriorate there are only going to be more and more outliers.
Congress could craft legislative remedies, to put people is smaller quicker lines, expand visa catagories and visa caps, and also restrictions and limitations. But if you are only doing restrictions and limitations (ex. close the border), you are not actually engaging with the systems and processes creating the issue to begin with.
Congress taking no action on immigration in over 20 years makes any of their actual policy objections seems less rational and more ideological or just straight up racial. It keeps immigration as an issue to get election on and not actually a problem to try to solve.
Interested in your thoughts too. I may just be in the policy mud, of too nuanced to be useful, over here.
This is really compelling to me! One of the reasons why I raised this topic was that I have a sense that (in public policy) everybody from the Democratic Party on through the left has internalized immigration as a defensive issue, for understandable reasons. "Conservatives are attacking immigrants, so it's our job to defend them." And that's right! But it means that we're also stuck implicitly defending aspects of the system that are not worth defending (like there not being enough resources to literally process people). So I do think part of this is being willing, as you put it really well, to go on the offensive more... "if you care so much about crowds at the border, why are you shutting down the processes that could help alleviate those lines?'
This is very helpful discussion/framing-- thank you! I was thinking about the ways the immigration system doesn't work in the context of Garrett's question a few weeks ago about examples of “how wonderful government services can be.” (The implication being that we know how terrible government services can be.) Much of the brokenness of the system (as I experience it) is not necessarily ideological, but just the result of lack of funds, bureaucracy, outdated rules, poor technology, poor communication, etc. But because “immigration” has been used as a wedge issue, discussions about fixing the system are framed, as you say, around how we feel about immigrants, and the conversation gets stuck there. Really, though, it’s part of a conversation about ways our government administrations are failing to, well, administer. And we all deserve better. Unfortunately, I don’t know if this is a more or less hopeful take. It seems like you could get a lot of people on board with “systems need to be easier to navigate,” but it’s a fine line before you are in the realm of bashing “government,” another ideological muddle.
It's something I thin about a ton, though, Lisa-- for those of us on the left, we should be way wonkier about (and hold even higher standards) for what would actually improve government on the pure logistics/buereacracy/back end/front end customer service experience. And you're right, it's hard to talk about this publicly without potentially accidentally veering into government bashing, but I think it's so crucial. The other day at the post office, I could tell that the clerks were particularly frustrated (and that was playing out in their customer service, which of course meant that I could feel myself getting frustrated with them) and I started wondering things like "huh, I wonder what about the current USPS computer systems work well or poorly for them?" "what rules/operating procedures would they change to make their jobs run smoother?" etc.
*rolls up sleeves and rubs hands together*
Immigration lawyer chiming in. This prompt is... in my lane.
Another substacker I follow, who also happens to be an immigration researcher wrote a post that immigration dialog has moved out of the realm of fact based, routine, paper filing, processing of how people get in and out and has moved into a specifically wedge political issue to be used for party ideology, and that framing resonated with me.
There is so much misinformation about the border and how immigration actually works and often the dialog get pushed into box of how do we "feel" about people immigrating and whether they have a right or a reason to immigrate, when really we should actually have anything to say about that at all. It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately and that there are options for people to migrate saftely and efficiently (there is a whole set of law and treaties for this). Right now we don't have a functional safe system, since we underfunded the immigration processing agencies, dredged their staff in the *rump administration, and reduced ways for people to migrate or even just visit the U.S. We've manufactured our our border crisis, and more and more people don't have any other options than to just show up and "get in the line".
I wonder if we started talking more about what makes an immigration system functional and why can't our elected pull that off, if it would take the focus off folks just trying to use the freedom to move and more on the people who won't let them.
Very, very happy to clear the floor for an immigration lawyer in our community :). This is really helpful for me to read. I think the line about how "It is between the migrant and how our country processes their paperwork. We've allowed our political people to tell us there isn't room and make value judgements about people migrating when it reality it is their job to make sure our government agencies are processing paperwork appropriately..." No need to reply to this, but how would you respond though to the conservative counterpoint "well, we can get on board with that, but we're still concerned with people coming here surreptitiously, because they're [insert one: jumping the line, not participating in the process, etc.]." I have some initial thoughts there, but would love your more informed perspective if you're up for it.
A couple thoughts, if the concern is people not fitting into the process, or not participating in the processes, why are conservative legislators (or all of them right now actually) so adament about shutting the processes down? Shouldn't they want to clean it up? Processing at the border is one big line. People are sitting in that line, becasue all the other shorter, quicker lines are closed out, restricted or so severly backlogged from neglect that there are no other options. We have funneled people into sitting at the border, where they either get impatient or face safety concerns, and try to cross a river or desert, jump into the trunk of someones car or pay coyotes.
The logical explaination seems to craft a better system, than to place blame on the outliers of a system that doesn't work, because as the processes continue to deteriorate there are only going to be more and more outliers.
Congress could craft legislative remedies, to put people is smaller quicker lines, expand visa catagories and visa caps, and also restrictions and limitations. But if you are only doing restrictions and limitations (ex. close the border), you are not actually engaging with the systems and processes creating the issue to begin with.
Congress taking no action on immigration in over 20 years makes any of their actual policy objections seems less rational and more ideological or just straight up racial. It keeps immigration as an issue to get election on and not actually a problem to try to solve.
Interested in your thoughts too. I may just be in the policy mud, of too nuanced to be useful, over here.
This is really compelling to me! One of the reasons why I raised this topic was that I have a sense that (in public policy) everybody from the Democratic Party on through the left has internalized immigration as a defensive issue, for understandable reasons. "Conservatives are attacking immigrants, so it's our job to defend them." And that's right! But it means that we're also stuck implicitly defending aspects of the system that are not worth defending (like there not being enough resources to literally process people). So I do think part of this is being willing, as you put it really well, to go on the offensive more... "if you care so much about crowds at the border, why are you shutting down the processes that could help alleviate those lines?'
This is very helpful discussion/framing-- thank you! I was thinking about the ways the immigration system doesn't work in the context of Garrett's question a few weeks ago about examples of “how wonderful government services can be.” (The implication being that we know how terrible government services can be.) Much of the brokenness of the system (as I experience it) is not necessarily ideological, but just the result of lack of funds, bureaucracy, outdated rules, poor technology, poor communication, etc. But because “immigration” has been used as a wedge issue, discussions about fixing the system are framed, as you say, around how we feel about immigrants, and the conversation gets stuck there. Really, though, it’s part of a conversation about ways our government administrations are failing to, well, administer. And we all deserve better. Unfortunately, I don’t know if this is a more or less hopeful take. It seems like you could get a lot of people on board with “systems need to be easier to navigate,” but it’s a fine line before you are in the realm of bashing “government,” another ideological muddle.
It's something I thin about a ton, though, Lisa-- for those of us on the left, we should be way wonkier about (and hold even higher standards) for what would actually improve government on the pure logistics/buereacracy/back end/front end customer service experience. And you're right, it's hard to talk about this publicly without potentially accidentally veering into government bashing, but I think it's so crucial. The other day at the post office, I could tell that the clerks were particularly frustrated (and that was playing out in their customer service, which of course meant that I could feel myself getting frustrated with them) and I started wondering things like "huh, I wonder what about the current USPS computer systems work well or poorly for them?" "what rules/operating procedures would they change to make their jobs run smoother?" etc.