The failure to address immigration in formal debate is something that has happened for at least a decade now! The failure to EVEN have discourse about immigration is hypocritical; I would go as far as saying it is ironic. The United States of America, which is historically an immigrant-country, is now failing to address immigration! Really? As if the 13 colonies were originally from the North American continent: THEY WERE IMMIGRANTS! 

UNIDOS EN VOZ Y VOTO

I am proud of attending and being a part of the audience at the Unidos en Voz y Voto panel meeting held by Mark Heller, Flannery Rokeby-Jackson, and César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández which was programmed by The Alpha Chapter of Alpha Psi Lambda National Inc. and hosted by Lauren Tristen Gonzalez. The meeting largely focused on key issues, such as polarization, that are interconnected with immigration as well as democratic erosion.

Polarization

Do you know when the last immigration reform was passed in Congress? It has been nearly 4 decades, since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was passed by Congress. As a result, we have the current “immigration problem” at the border due to an outdated bill that has not been revised ever since the late 1980’s.

Furthermore, Professor García Hernández said that the key problem that constitutes for such an outdated bill is all due to bipartisan polarization. He emphasized that “. . .it is insanely devastating how the foundation that keeps the Unites States afloat is not even a part of mainstream debate.” As we witnessed in the first presidential debate between Harris and Trump, throughout the entire time both candidates were given to discuss about their policies for immigration, not one word they both said was by any means related to immigration reform. Extremely saddening. . .

In addition, Professor García Hernández said that “the only way for a new contemporary immigration reform to make its way through Congress is if and only if the bill is bipartisan. Even then can the bill be denied or vetoed.”

Populism

Why is immigration reform heavily impacted by bipartisan polarization? Well, because of populism! Immigration is, at the moment, currently viewed as a populist topic that aims to get an increase in voter-turnout from communities of Black and Latine communities. At least, that is the line of defense for Republicans, specifically Trumpists’.

Usually in American politics, Democrats are the ones to fight for a more inclusive and expansive immigration system. Democrats usually promote immigration, especially of Latine people. On the other hand, Republicans view the immigration system as exhaustion of welfare and resources, terrorism, mass crime rates, etc. Republicans want to completely eradicate immigration from The States: at least, that is one of the goals of Trumpism.

While I have hope that one of Harris’s goals is to positively and beneficially reform the immigration system for Latine immigrants even if it is one of her populist goals. I would much rather prefer Harris’s populist immigration goal over Trump’s anti-immigration and pro Neo-nationalism populist goal to completely annihilate the immigration system for good. Why?

Why did I notoriously emphasize Harris’s aspiration to amend the immigration system as one of her, possible, populist ideas? Well, because populism is a step closer to democratic erosion. How much more am I willing to sacrifice the democracy I live in for my individual interest? If I do choose to sacrifice my democracy for my interest-policy, how many more people like me are out there? If a huge majority of people who are willing to sacrifice the same democracy they and I live in, is there any turning back from democratic backsliding?

Misinformation

Attorney Mark Heller said, “One of the reasons it is hard to naturalize immigrants in the United States is in part due to misinformation of international affairs spewing in American media, influencing the legal system. It is also in part due to the misinformation of my clients. At least, not because they are purposefully lying but-rather because of the language barrier that exists between them and I; as well as, the linguistic difficulties that arise when trying to effectively and efficiently translate from the native language to English.”

Think about the current Springfield false rumor-gossip and how that is affecting the lives’ of Haitians. Imagine how that can now transcribe onto the population of Latine peoples’ and their residential legality. This is what Attorney Mark Heller meant when he said that misinformation can affect the process of his clients’ residential legalism. The Springfield rumor has become national, possibly even international now.

Now when you have a Haitian or someone who stereotypically looks like a Haitian apply for asylum due to prosecution. How do you think their process to residential legality be in the legal system? I am glad that Attorney Mark Heller actually provided an answer to this hypothetical question. His answer was “probably not any different than the other 74% of immigrants who get denied citizenship and of those, 67% who get deported back to their country of birth. And if it were to be any different than those statistics it would become an incredibly challenging process to get them naturalized as the last immigration reform of 1986 strictly provides only three ways to become a citizen of the United States. And of those three ways, only a small group of immigrants qualify”

Exclusion

Having an immigration system established is by definition inherently exclusive of others. As Community Resource Developer (CRD) Flannery Rokeby-Jackson said, “The United States did not start to exclude others starting the Naturalization Act of 1790, rather that rhetoric prevailed way before the 1700’s. As soon as when the first thought of colonization arrived at the mind of the colonizers is at that pivotal point in history when the United States started to exclude others.”

Furthermore, when the legal system decides WHO gets to become a naturalized citizen of the United States is when the legal system by all means becomes systemically discriminatory and dehumanizing. In other words, restated by CRD Rokeby-Jackson, “majority of those immigrants who do become naturalized are either white-passing, European, of conflicting countries with the U.S., and have above-proficiency in the English language.” She followed-up by saying, “In other words, if you are brown or black, muslim, lack quality education, not European, and are from a country that provides no benefit to the U.S. you will be denied naturalization.”

Knowing that this is how the U.S. has been operating for the past few decades even centuries with the prevailing anti-POC rhetoric saddens me. It also makes me lose hope in The American Dream. I just hope that when my grandchildren are in their 40’s, that the U.S. will be progressively more inclusive of Latine immigrants and step-away from the derogatory-rooted behavior against, us, immigrants.