My 2 cents as I am not Hispanic, I am a Dem though, let the Hispanic Caucus do what they think is the right action to take. What the party is choosing to ignore, is the Dem constituency wants them to fight. It is a huge mistake to follow the 'silent strategy' of Carville and the party standard bearers. I am pretty sure the Hispanic Caucus knows their constituents better.
Senator Gallego's proposal certainly sounds good. As I've noted elsewhere, other countries have already found solutions for some of the immigration issues that the US faces, and many of them are scalable; copying and adapting could be a big help. Stephen Miller's objections aren't offered in good faith so whatever the answer he'll always come up with another, but Brazil has come up with a solution to specific objection he offered: they've uncoupled legal permanent residency and naturalization.
There's no assumption in Brazil that legal permanent residents will necessarily be naturalized. Unlike US Green Card holders (who are assumed to be in a citizenship process and can't be out of the US for more than six months in any one year), permanent residents in Brazil can come and go as they please, as long as they're not out of the country for more than two continuous years at a time. A brief return before two years are up is enough to restart the clock. They have all the rights of citizens (including freedom of expression, free healthcare, the right to own property, and the right to work legally) except that they don't have the rights to vote, to hold office, and to hold civil service jobs. They can continue in that status indefinitely; I have a friend who's going on fifty years as a legal permanent resident. They can apply for naturalization after four continuous years of residency, but they don't have to. The documentation requirements for naturalization are stiff and the language requirement is stiffer, but the language requirement is waived for anyone who's over 60 and has been lived in the country for fifteen continuous years.
A more flexible Green Card with similar features and no automatic "path to citizenship" might be an effective, non-punitive way to provide millions of people living in the US illegally with permanent legal status and employment rights while sidestepping most of the political issues connected with amnesty.
I had to read that a few times to make sure I understood you were describing Brazil's Green Card and not the U.S., since most of what you describe are also features of U.S. Green Cards and what it means to be a U.S. legal permanent resident. You are mistaken about a few things here that I'd like to help correct. First, you aren't automatically on a path to citizenship as a green card holder in the U.S., and a U.S. permanent resident can renew their green card every 10 years if they choose without ever becoming a citizen. You can apply for citizenship after being a legal permanent resident (aka, a green card holder) after 5 years, or 3 years if your green card was issued based on your marriage to a U.S. citizen. There is a documentation requirement for every application for status change submitted to USCIS, including naturalization from green card to citizen, and there is a nominal English language requirement, by which I mean the naturalization exam is administered in English by a USCIS agent and you need to know enough English to communicate with the agent administering the test and understand and answer it in English sufficiently enough to get a passing grade, but as a practical matter that is not overly burdensome and a person with limited English skills can pass it with enough advanced study and practice. The language requirement at naturalization is waived in the U.S. for older persons over 60 or 65 I believe as well.
Green cards are not simply given to fresh arrivals, legal or not, and there is a wide variety of dozens of immigrant and non-immigrant status categories and visas available under U.S. law that potential immigrants may be eligible for depending on their individual circumstances and basis for their immigration or entry into the country and that vary in duration, conditions, rights and privileges, depending on the nature of the visa granted. The visa provides for entry into the country, after which you can apply for permanent residency if eligible under the law. Ultimately every single visa, change of status, or other immigration related issue is governed by U.S. law and requires the submission of applications and documents to USCIS to review and consider before any determination can be made.
Meetings with USCIS officers and quasi judicial hearings may be necessary or required, and failure to comply with these requirements can jeopardize an application or legal immigrants status and make them eligible for immediate detention and deportation under the immigration laws upon hearings and findings by USCIS officials. The reality is that despite the rhetoric of people like Miller and the anti-immigrant right, the administrative immigration system we have is incredibly robust and complex, it provides many many different legal paths to cover many many different individual circumstances and allows people without status or subject to deportation to challenge or change their status and legalize themselves when they are eligible to do so. Certainly illegal border crossings are an issue, and asylum applications are subject to abuse, particularly when there is delay in their processing, but the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country had legal status at some point or applications for some form of status change pending, and the majority are persons who flew in and entered legally and overstayed a temporary visa, rather than persons who crossed the southern border without inspection. For these reasons and more, the simplistic rhetoric about legals and illegals or amnesty favored by the Millers of the world is wholly unhelpful to anything, but as you correctly note its all offered in bad faith anyway. That's why you are mistaken about the idea that you can sidestep amnesty claims. You can't. The system needs reform. It needs simplification and less rigidity in its treatment of certain illegals, which has proven counterproductive to controlling the illegal immigrant population and serving U.S. interests. And it needs more administrative resources for efficient processing and hearings under the law, and greater flexibility to deal with the people who fall into the existing systems gaps. All of the proposals that would address any of these issues would be met with nonsensical bad faith cries of amnesty no matter the reality, so its best to come to terms with that now.
I’m sorry that my post was unclear: I was trying to be concise, and apparently ended up being confusing instead.
Unless it has changed since the last time I looked into it in detail, the US Green Card has what I consider to be a serious bias toward citizenship in the fact that it’s forfeited if the holder is out of the country for more than six months in any year. This seems to me a needless roadblock to a permanent resident non-citizen who wants to lead a genuinely binational life, not present with the Brazilian CRNM.
I think that a Green Card without that limitation but with no path to citizenship, while it would never satisfy the Millers of the country, would satisfy a lot of people currently in the country illegally, and go a long way toward easing the legitimate fears of the broad middle about amnesty. For me, it should be available to anyone who’s been in the country for a certain number of years, is up-to-date on their income and Social Security taxes, and has a clean criminal record. There should be no fine, just a processing charge. For people who want to become citizens, I’m ok with the common proposal of paying a fine, receiving the “standard” Green Card with the current restrictions on absence, and “going to the back of the line”, i.e., their waiting period to apply for naturalization starts when they receive their card, regardless of when they arrived in the United States.
I also think that any alien who meets the qualifications to enlist in the Active Duty US Armed Forces and does so should receive their citizenship simultaneously with their Honorable Discharge, or the first time they re-up if they choose to make the military their career. If they’re willing swear to protect and defend the Constitution and to put their lives on the line for us and prove it, they deserve to have their place among us as far as I’m concerned.
I certainly agree that the US Immigration System is “complex”; I would not agree with you that it is “robust”. Maybe it could be if it were fully staffed and funded (which I favor regardless) but I suspect that it would still be too complex, involve too many delays, and be subject to too much individual discretion on the part of officials. It certainly “provides many many different legal paths to cover many many different individual circumstances” — many more than it probably needs, and certainly more than it’s currently able to administer fairly and efficiently. Aside from tourist and official visas, the Brazilian system has fifteen temporary visa categories in the VITEM series (https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/consulado-los-angeles/english/visas/types-of-visa), some of which can lead to permanent residency, some of which cannot., and all of this is defined upfront so that the applicant is left with no doubts.
You seem to draw some kind of distinction between illegal border crossers and illegal visa overstayers. You’re far from alone, but this distinction makes no sense to me. They’re all equally illegal; in fact, a case could be made that the overstayers deserve LESS consideration, because their actions suggest bad faith. In Brazil, they’re treated the same way. That’s easier because employer sanctions are firmly enforced and have wide public support across the political spectrum, so there’s less incentive to overstay.
In processing asylum applications, Brazil hews closely to the 1951 Refugee Convention: asylum is only granted based on “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” That’s a bright line that determined advocates have managed to practically erase in the United States, to the ridiculous extent that there are Brazilians — people from a democratic country where there’s no danger of official persecution — on parole in the US waiting for asylum claims that should have been rejected summarily at the port of entry to be adjudicated. Asylum applicants in Brazil are detained in humane conditions, and their cases are cleared in days, weeks at the most, without parole into the interior of the country. There is also generous provision for the equivalent of Temporary Protected Status, but that is handled separately from asylum.
The above notwithstanding, we agree on a lot of things, and we’re not going to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform plan here. As I said in my original post, the challenge for the US is not unique in its nature, but it’s unique in its scope because of the enormous number of people who want to come in. That means that not every method that works abroad will work there, but I still believe that some of them, maybe many of them, are worth trying.
“You seem to draw some kind of distinction between illegal border crossers and illegal visa overstayers. You’re far from alone, but this distinction makes no sense to me. They’re all equally illegal; in fact, a case could be made that the overstayers deserve LESS consideration, because their actions suggest bad faith.”
Yes, there is a legal distinction between the two under existing law. A person who entered legally and falls out of status because they overstayed a visa for whatever reason has a lot more options available under the law to obtain a new visa or some other change to their legal status. A person who crosses the border illegally has far few options under the law because the eligibility requirements for a lot of applications for a lot of the various status changes and potential visas require that the applicant have a lawful initial entry. To be clear, I’m not making a values based or policy distinction here or advocating for this distinction. Just telling you that there is one because current laws treat them differently. Without a lawful initial entry and inspection you are ineligible for most potential status changes. One of the few you are still eligible for is asylum, which is one more reason why there are so many applications submitted for asylum, backlog, and potential for abuse. Our own laws have turned it into a catch all and status of last resort. Greater flexibility would be preferable and in the country’s best interests.
Ok, I understand what you meant now. I would just note that a green card is shorthand for someone who is a lawful permanent resident, who will have the option to apply for citizenship after 3 or 5 years but doesn’t have to and can just maintain their resident status by renewing it every 10 years in perpetuity. So its not an automatic citizenship track or bias, rather as the name suggests, it has a serious bias toward permanent residency and wouldn’t permit a green card holder to lead a binational life like you describe. I doubt it would effect many people, but someone who wants to lead that life could consider other visa options under which they would be able to come and go and maintain the visa, they just have to accept the increased uncertainty that comes with such status, especially with the way the idiots in power are administering our immigration system and ports of entry.
I'm very familiar with that aspect because when my Brazilian husband and I got married in 2017 we were hoping to live binationally, and the excellent immigration attorney we consulted explained why that wouldn't be possible on the US side. My husband has had a US Visitor Visa for over ten years and has never come close to a violation or an overstay, but I don't expect that we'll be coming back again anytime before 2029, just in case.
When he became President Jaír Bolsonaro and his allies began talking about reversing the status of same-sex marriage in Brazil. It's highly unlikely that would have been possible, but I became a Brazilian citizen while retaining my US citizenship to be absolutely safe. Now I can't be deported, and since we're both Brazilians, we can live in Portugal, too, if we want to, or find it necessary. Not a bad deal.
In becoming first a permanent resident and then a citizen, I got a good look at how Venezuelan asylum seekers were being treated. Not being a Spanish-speaking country Brazil is not Venezuelans' first choice if they other options, but the scene was still usually me and a roomful of Venezuelans, all being processed courteously and efficiently. By the time I was naturalized, the Federal Police had hired some Spanish-speaking interpreters to help, too. Kristi Noem would not approve -- but of course, she doesn't even know what habeas corpus is, so what could we expect?
Hi Adrian, is there anyway we could get you to interview the masked ICE agents who are kidnapping these various citizens and immigrants? Why isn't the media doing this? Someone should be asking them, "do you understand that kidnapping someone without cause is illegal? And if so why are you breaking the law? Have you been told Donald will pardon you?" Thanks.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Americans have been proven to be incredibly ill informed and easily duped by social media echo chambers putting out the exact same talking points across multiple platforms
First, welcome back Adrian. Your "Huddled Masses" newsletter is timely and deep on the subject it represents... how painful to our shared humanity the Trump administration's immigration policies are. Thank you. Second, while good to see the cracks, this was always going to be the result. As a lifelong Democrat and an always liberal, I wish my party would pony up real reforms as a #1 priority. On this issue particularly, the Democratic Party has promised and promised and promised, focus on the right thing and deliver change. Seems simple, but the current leadership remains too fickle, poll tested, and consultant oriented. Like many other issues where democratic and liberal values are the correct moral imperative, the Democratic Party continues to miss the mark - DNC, please wake up.
Gallego's "plan" is the compromise Dems & Rep used to reach when I was a kid before the Republican party became the party of no immigration ever. The border became chaotic because the Republican party refused to do anything on immigration. I know that's not how its framed and what people believed, but look back at the immigration reform bill that Dems were ready to pass - they have consistently ignored the pro immigration activists while the Republican party has collapsed to its most extreme. I'm not against Gallego's approach. But when will people be able to view any of this honestly? The extreme right is running the show. There is no extreme left in this country with any power whatsoever. If the America people can only view disruptive protest in favor of rule of law and due process as chaos, then we have already lost our democracy. I don't believe that. People need to be given a fresh lens to view Republican extremism - we need to see ourselves in those cells BEFORE we end up in them.
What voters didn’t realize is that Trump and his administration consider anybody who entered the United States without documentation to be a criminal. I also think there was a lot of wishful thinking (about inflation as well as immigration).
When trump said "they're sending their rapists" he was referring to Mexicans, but I could substitute any race other than white.
Maybe Latinos thought they weren't subject to racism but being that they are the fastest growing population in the US, they will be targeted accordingly.
None other than white men are safe. It will get worse before it gets better.
Even white men won’t be safe if they displease Dear Leader. (Example: James Comey. Don’t you think Trump would love to send him to CECOT if he could get away with it?)
A sizable minority of respondents—29 percent—view Trump’s actions as “good and fair,” agreeing with the statement “if some people who are not criminals suffer because of it, it’s the price to pay to ensure our safety.”
This question should have been. "If you are not a criminal, you should suffer because of it it's the price to pay to ensure our safety"
I was agog at this. So these approving folks—they would be happy to be snatched off the street themselves—or have it be their loved ones—and sent to a hellhole prison in another country “to ensure our safety”? How . . . self-sacrificing.
The Ben Franklin quote is a propos: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think people are finally figuring it out.
What does “secure our border” even mean? The asylum system needs to be fixed, but that won’t happen anytime soon. So, when we say “secure our border,” have we identified actual issues, or are we just parroting MAGA lies about made-up problems? Let’s be specific about what the border issues actually are.
To take this just an inch further, I'm sure that these people will agree with "if some innocent people die to confirm some of my biases and prejudices, it's a price I'm willing they pay"
On Latinos having second thoughts, dudes, amigos, if a man asks you to load a gun so that he can shoot your neighbor in the head, and you load it, and he does, you can't say you weren't complicit.
So sick of Democrats’ timidity casting about for just the right “messaging.” Just speak from your heart and tell people Trump’s deportation theater of cruelty is actually not removing any more dangerous migrants than Biden.
Boy, if those Democrats don’t get their messaging just right I guess we’ll have to stick with the Republicans or not vote.
My 2 cents as I am not Hispanic, I am a Dem though, let the Hispanic Caucus do what they think is the right action to take. What the party is choosing to ignore, is the Dem constituency wants them to fight. It is a huge mistake to follow the 'silent strategy' of Carville and the party standard bearers. I am pretty sure the Hispanic Caucus knows their constituents better.
Senator Gallego's proposal certainly sounds good. As I've noted elsewhere, other countries have already found solutions for some of the immigration issues that the US faces, and many of them are scalable; copying and adapting could be a big help. Stephen Miller's objections aren't offered in good faith so whatever the answer he'll always come up with another, but Brazil has come up with a solution to specific objection he offered: they've uncoupled legal permanent residency and naturalization.
There's no assumption in Brazil that legal permanent residents will necessarily be naturalized. Unlike US Green Card holders (who are assumed to be in a citizenship process and can't be out of the US for more than six months in any one year), permanent residents in Brazil can come and go as they please, as long as they're not out of the country for more than two continuous years at a time. A brief return before two years are up is enough to restart the clock. They have all the rights of citizens (including freedom of expression, free healthcare, the right to own property, and the right to work legally) except that they don't have the rights to vote, to hold office, and to hold civil service jobs. They can continue in that status indefinitely; I have a friend who's going on fifty years as a legal permanent resident. They can apply for naturalization after four continuous years of residency, but they don't have to. The documentation requirements for naturalization are stiff and the language requirement is stiffer, but the language requirement is waived for anyone who's over 60 and has been lived in the country for fifteen continuous years.
A more flexible Green Card with similar features and no automatic "path to citizenship" might be an effective, non-punitive way to provide millions of people living in the US illegally with permanent legal status and employment rights while sidestepping most of the political issues connected with amnesty.
I had to read that a few times to make sure I understood you were describing Brazil's Green Card and not the U.S., since most of what you describe are also features of U.S. Green Cards and what it means to be a U.S. legal permanent resident. You are mistaken about a few things here that I'd like to help correct. First, you aren't automatically on a path to citizenship as a green card holder in the U.S., and a U.S. permanent resident can renew their green card every 10 years if they choose without ever becoming a citizen. You can apply for citizenship after being a legal permanent resident (aka, a green card holder) after 5 years, or 3 years if your green card was issued based on your marriage to a U.S. citizen. There is a documentation requirement for every application for status change submitted to USCIS, including naturalization from green card to citizen, and there is a nominal English language requirement, by which I mean the naturalization exam is administered in English by a USCIS agent and you need to know enough English to communicate with the agent administering the test and understand and answer it in English sufficiently enough to get a passing grade, but as a practical matter that is not overly burdensome and a person with limited English skills can pass it with enough advanced study and practice. The language requirement at naturalization is waived in the U.S. for older persons over 60 or 65 I believe as well.
Green cards are not simply given to fresh arrivals, legal or not, and there is a wide variety of dozens of immigrant and non-immigrant status categories and visas available under U.S. law that potential immigrants may be eligible for depending on their individual circumstances and basis for their immigration or entry into the country and that vary in duration, conditions, rights and privileges, depending on the nature of the visa granted. The visa provides for entry into the country, after which you can apply for permanent residency if eligible under the law. Ultimately every single visa, change of status, or other immigration related issue is governed by U.S. law and requires the submission of applications and documents to USCIS to review and consider before any determination can be made.
Meetings with USCIS officers and quasi judicial hearings may be necessary or required, and failure to comply with these requirements can jeopardize an application or legal immigrants status and make them eligible for immediate detention and deportation under the immigration laws upon hearings and findings by USCIS officials. The reality is that despite the rhetoric of people like Miller and the anti-immigrant right, the administrative immigration system we have is incredibly robust and complex, it provides many many different legal paths to cover many many different individual circumstances and allows people without status or subject to deportation to challenge or change their status and legalize themselves when they are eligible to do so. Certainly illegal border crossings are an issue, and asylum applications are subject to abuse, particularly when there is delay in their processing, but the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country had legal status at some point or applications for some form of status change pending, and the majority are persons who flew in and entered legally and overstayed a temporary visa, rather than persons who crossed the southern border without inspection. For these reasons and more, the simplistic rhetoric about legals and illegals or amnesty favored by the Millers of the world is wholly unhelpful to anything, but as you correctly note its all offered in bad faith anyway. That's why you are mistaken about the idea that you can sidestep amnesty claims. You can't. The system needs reform. It needs simplification and less rigidity in its treatment of certain illegals, which has proven counterproductive to controlling the illegal immigrant population and serving U.S. interests. And it needs more administrative resources for efficient processing and hearings under the law, and greater flexibility to deal with the people who fall into the existing systems gaps. All of the proposals that would address any of these issues would be met with nonsensical bad faith cries of amnesty no matter the reality, so its best to come to terms with that now.
I’m sorry that my post was unclear: I was trying to be concise, and apparently ended up being confusing instead.
Unless it has changed since the last time I looked into it in detail, the US Green Card has what I consider to be a serious bias toward citizenship in the fact that it’s forfeited if the holder is out of the country for more than six months in any year. This seems to me a needless roadblock to a permanent resident non-citizen who wants to lead a genuinely binational life, not present with the Brazilian CRNM.
I think that a Green Card without that limitation but with no path to citizenship, while it would never satisfy the Millers of the country, would satisfy a lot of people currently in the country illegally, and go a long way toward easing the legitimate fears of the broad middle about amnesty. For me, it should be available to anyone who’s been in the country for a certain number of years, is up-to-date on their income and Social Security taxes, and has a clean criminal record. There should be no fine, just a processing charge. For people who want to become citizens, I’m ok with the common proposal of paying a fine, receiving the “standard” Green Card with the current restrictions on absence, and “going to the back of the line”, i.e., their waiting period to apply for naturalization starts when they receive their card, regardless of when they arrived in the United States.
I also think that any alien who meets the qualifications to enlist in the Active Duty US Armed Forces and does so should receive their citizenship simultaneously with their Honorable Discharge, or the first time they re-up if they choose to make the military their career. If they’re willing swear to protect and defend the Constitution and to put their lives on the line for us and prove it, they deserve to have their place among us as far as I’m concerned.
I certainly agree that the US Immigration System is “complex”; I would not agree with you that it is “robust”. Maybe it could be if it were fully staffed and funded (which I favor regardless) but I suspect that it would still be too complex, involve too many delays, and be subject to too much individual discretion on the part of officials. It certainly “provides many many different legal paths to cover many many different individual circumstances” — many more than it probably needs, and certainly more than it’s currently able to administer fairly and efficiently. Aside from tourist and official visas, the Brazilian system has fifteen temporary visa categories in the VITEM series (https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/consulado-los-angeles/english/visas/types-of-visa), some of which can lead to permanent residency, some of which cannot., and all of this is defined upfront so that the applicant is left with no doubts.
You seem to draw some kind of distinction between illegal border crossers and illegal visa overstayers. You’re far from alone, but this distinction makes no sense to me. They’re all equally illegal; in fact, a case could be made that the overstayers deserve LESS consideration, because their actions suggest bad faith. In Brazil, they’re treated the same way. That’s easier because employer sanctions are firmly enforced and have wide public support across the political spectrum, so there’s less incentive to overstay.
In processing asylum applications, Brazil hews closely to the 1951 Refugee Convention: asylum is only granted based on “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” That’s a bright line that determined advocates have managed to practically erase in the United States, to the ridiculous extent that there are Brazilians — people from a democratic country where there’s no danger of official persecution — on parole in the US waiting for asylum claims that should have been rejected summarily at the port of entry to be adjudicated. Asylum applicants in Brazil are detained in humane conditions, and their cases are cleared in days, weeks at the most, without parole into the interior of the country. There is also generous provision for the equivalent of Temporary Protected Status, but that is handled separately from asylum.
The above notwithstanding, we agree on a lot of things, and we’re not going to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform plan here. As I said in my original post, the challenge for the US is not unique in its nature, but it’s unique in its scope because of the enormous number of people who want to come in. That means that not every method that works abroad will work there, but I still believe that some of them, maybe many of them, are worth trying.
“You seem to draw some kind of distinction between illegal border crossers and illegal visa overstayers. You’re far from alone, but this distinction makes no sense to me. They’re all equally illegal; in fact, a case could be made that the overstayers deserve LESS consideration, because their actions suggest bad faith.”
Yes, there is a legal distinction between the two under existing law. A person who entered legally and falls out of status because they overstayed a visa for whatever reason has a lot more options available under the law to obtain a new visa or some other change to their legal status. A person who crosses the border illegally has far few options under the law because the eligibility requirements for a lot of applications for a lot of the various status changes and potential visas require that the applicant have a lawful initial entry. To be clear, I’m not making a values based or policy distinction here or advocating for this distinction. Just telling you that there is one because current laws treat them differently. Without a lawful initial entry and inspection you are ineligible for most potential status changes. One of the few you are still eligible for is asylum, which is one more reason why there are so many applications submitted for asylum, backlog, and potential for abuse. Our own laws have turned it into a catch all and status of last resort. Greater flexibility would be preferable and in the country’s best interests.
That IS new information for me, thanks. Sounds like an area that's ripe for reform, one of many.
Ok, I understand what you meant now. I would just note that a green card is shorthand for someone who is a lawful permanent resident, who will have the option to apply for citizenship after 3 or 5 years but doesn’t have to and can just maintain their resident status by renewing it every 10 years in perpetuity. So its not an automatic citizenship track or bias, rather as the name suggests, it has a serious bias toward permanent residency and wouldn’t permit a green card holder to lead a binational life like you describe. I doubt it would effect many people, but someone who wants to lead that life could consider other visa options under which they would be able to come and go and maintain the visa, they just have to accept the increased uncertainty that comes with such status, especially with the way the idiots in power are administering our immigration system and ports of entry.
I'm very familiar with that aspect because when my Brazilian husband and I got married in 2017 we were hoping to live binationally, and the excellent immigration attorney we consulted explained why that wouldn't be possible on the US side. My husband has had a US Visitor Visa for over ten years and has never come close to a violation or an overstay, but I don't expect that we'll be coming back again anytime before 2029, just in case.
When he became President Jaír Bolsonaro and his allies began talking about reversing the status of same-sex marriage in Brazil. It's highly unlikely that would have been possible, but I became a Brazilian citizen while retaining my US citizenship to be absolutely safe. Now I can't be deported, and since we're both Brazilians, we can live in Portugal, too, if we want to, or find it necessary. Not a bad deal.
In becoming first a permanent resident and then a citizen, I got a good look at how Venezuelan asylum seekers were being treated. Not being a Spanish-speaking country Brazil is not Venezuelans' first choice if they other options, but the scene was still usually me and a roomful of Venezuelans, all being processed courteously and efficiently. By the time I was naturalized, the Federal Police had hired some Spanish-speaking interpreters to help, too. Kristi Noem would not approve -- but of course, she doesn't even know what habeas corpus is, so what could we expect?
Hi Adrian, is there anyway we could get you to interview the masked ICE agents who are kidnapping these various citizens and immigrants? Why isn't the media doing this? Someone should be asking them, "do you understand that kidnapping someone without cause is illegal? And if so why are you breaking the law? Have you been told Donald will pardon you?" Thanks.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Americans have been proven to be incredibly ill informed and easily duped by social media echo chambers putting out the exact same talking points across multiple platforms
First, welcome back Adrian. Your "Huddled Masses" newsletter is timely and deep on the subject it represents... how painful to our shared humanity the Trump administration's immigration policies are. Thank you. Second, while good to see the cracks, this was always going to be the result. As a lifelong Democrat and an always liberal, I wish my party would pony up real reforms as a #1 priority. On this issue particularly, the Democratic Party has promised and promised and promised, focus on the right thing and deliver change. Seems simple, but the current leadership remains too fickle, poll tested, and consultant oriented. Like many other issues where democratic and liberal values are the correct moral imperative, the Democratic Party continues to miss the mark - DNC, please wake up.
Gallego's "plan" is the compromise Dems & Rep used to reach when I was a kid before the Republican party became the party of no immigration ever. The border became chaotic because the Republican party refused to do anything on immigration. I know that's not how its framed and what people believed, but look back at the immigration reform bill that Dems were ready to pass - they have consistently ignored the pro immigration activists while the Republican party has collapsed to its most extreme. I'm not against Gallego's approach. But when will people be able to view any of this honestly? The extreme right is running the show. There is no extreme left in this country with any power whatsoever. If the America people can only view disruptive protest in favor of rule of law and due process as chaos, then we have already lost our democracy. I don't believe that. People need to be given a fresh lens to view Republican extremism - we need to see ourselves in those cells BEFORE we end up in them.
What voters didn’t realize is that Trump and his administration consider anybody who entered the United States without documentation to be a criminal. I also think there was a lot of wishful thinking (about inflation as well as immigration).
When trump said "they're sending their rapists" he was referring to Mexicans, but I could substitute any race other than white.
Maybe Latinos thought they weren't subject to racism but being that they are the fastest growing population in the US, they will be targeted accordingly.
None other than white men are safe. It will get worse before it gets better.
Even white men won’t be safe if they displease Dear Leader. (Example: James Comey. Don’t you think Trump would love to send him to CECOT if he could get away with it?)
No. Comey is one white man trump hates and there are several on his list.
However that does not compare to any group of color who is targeted. Like Latinos.
Sera has this correct.
Thought this might be of interest to readers of this newsletter. Good local reporting.
https://flatwaterfreepress.org/like-a-threat-mass-email-urging-immigrants-to-self-deport-sows-fear-confusion-in-nebraska/
A sizable minority of respondents—29 percent—view Trump’s actions as “good and fair,” agreeing with the statement “if some people who are not criminals suffer because of it, it’s the price to pay to ensure our safety.”
This question should have been. "If you are not a criminal, you should suffer because of it it's the price to pay to ensure our safety"
I was agog at this. So these approving folks—they would be happy to be snatched off the street themselves—or have it be their loved ones—and sent to a hellhole prison in another country “to ensure our safety”? How . . . self-sacrificing.
The Ben Franklin quote is a propos: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I think people are finally figuring it out.
Yeah, like the False Messiah cares. Get real.
What does “secure our border” even mean? The asylum system needs to be fixed, but that won’t happen anytime soon. So, when we say “secure our border,” have we identified actual issues, or are we just parroting MAGA lies about made-up problems? Let’s be specific about what the border issues actually are.
The border is currently "woke" and that should be enough of a talking point for the cretins.
‘…agreeing with the statement “if some people who are not criminals suffer because of it, it’s the price to pay to ensure our safety.”’
I.e., “if some people who are not criminals suffer because of it, because this will never happen to me, it’s the price to pay to ensure our safety.”
To take this just an inch further, I'm sure that these people will agree with "if some innocent people die to confirm some of my biases and prejudices, it's a price I'm willing they pay"
On Latinos having second thoughts, dudes, amigos, if a man asks you to load a gun so that he can shoot your neighbor in the head, and you load it, and he does, you can't say you weren't complicit.
So sick of Democrats’ timidity casting about for just the right “messaging.” Just speak from your heart and tell people Trump’s deportation theater of cruelty is actually not removing any more dangerous migrants than Biden.
What happen to doing the right thing.
Let trump acquire greenland and deport maga there