Jeff calls for deporting the criminals. I assume by this he does not mean people guilty of the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized entry, (If such "criminals" deserve expulsion, then so does the felon in the White House).
I have no problem with expelling convicted criminals, if it poses no threat to the US (I would oppose deporting a Mexican drug cartel leader serving time in US prison as this would just enable his return to crime). This was standard policy before Trump was first in office. I support creating a path to citizenship for illegals who have lived a long time here--assuming new entrants are prevented from entering illegally.
There was actually the compromise that was being worked out a couple of decades ago. The issue was the immigration hawks wanted assurance that we would control the borders before they would agree to some form of citizenship conversion. Did not happen. And the experience under Biden showed Democrats could not be trusted on the issue. I'm a liberal Democrat and I was appalled when it dug up the stats in border crossing for a discussion right here on Substack.
But I see now the border problem has been solved. Almost no border crossings.
I don't know what Trump did, but he has solved the immigration problem. If he was a normal politician, he would be making the rounds touting his solution to a crisis that seemed insurmountable a year and a half ago, I mean just look t that graph. A year ago, we were being told that we needed to pass an expensive bill to deal with the influx of migrants across the southern border.
But that is not what Trump is doing. Rather he is performing extraordinary rendition (ER) of "criminals" inside the US, just as we started doing decades ago with terrorists outside of the US. What's next, drone assassinations? Obama ended ER and ramped up drone strikes begun under Bush.
Why stir the pot with these ER actions? What is the objective here?
It’s become a real problem when Americans feel they have to change their views just to be able to participate in Democracy. Or to pretend they’re somebody they’re not just to be included in the debate.
As you thoughtfully describe, the reality of our lives and the world around us is often filled with nuance. Should our views on reality not reflect those nuances?
As it is true in life, so too is it true in policy. There is no such thing as all-benefit and no-cost legislation. There are no policies with only intended outcomes and no unintended consequences. There are always trade-offs, in life as in policy decisions.
To govern may be to choose, but the choice need not always be between one extreme or the other. Balance *is* a choice in its own right.
It is an affirmative position to be advocated for, one to be sought for its own merits. It is not a mushy space of indecision and confusion. It is a purposeful goal and selection in its own right. An often wise and sensible conclusion to reach.
A state of balance has the virtue of reflecting both points of view, giving each side a stake in the outcome. Drawing on the wisdom and perspectives of each side and leaving out what does not fit. This is not crazy. It’s how policymaking used to work.
Our politics will never change so long as people who take such a view as yours feel like it is not their place to say so. It will never get better if people feel that balance is not something they can advocate for and also be heard.
Stay nuanced, Jeff. It suits you. And it suits our system of government too.
The term “threading the needle” is coming up in every second blog and podcast these days. I agree with it.
But it rings hollow in the reality that we must face: very few people are interested in nuance. Never mind left/right. Self-righteousness and dogmatic certainty is back.
Because the path laid out in the article is a scam. It's the same scam the Democrats pulled during the Reagan administration, and the result will be the same. Millions of new voters and a giant incentive for more illegals to repeat the process. Fuck that, deport them all.
I understand your frustration and message; however, as a proud son of an immigrant, I don’t believe in “pick a side”. I believe in America First as it always should have been.
Great article. I have lived most of my life in CA. I don't want to live anywhere else, given my politics, etc. I have left at times, two fathers and a husband serving in the Navy and Marines. There is much that is good about CA. and a lot left to be desired. I hate our inequality here. I have struggled to some degree most of my life, as many have. My grandparents came here from AL in early 1915, though my family has been in the US since 1610. I agree on immigration; something drastic needs to be done. Why Congress will not bring in people who are smart enough with enough knowledge to help address and come up with a plan that will work long term, I do not understand. I hate what is happening right now, and as for Miller, I believe he has other issues; this is not about actual immigration for him. We need a way forward for those who have been here and built families, own homes, work...I am all for a safe border that functions well, I am not for shutting all people out, nor refusing those coming from countries where they have to leave to live. I do not know how many we can allow into our country and still function well, but I do know that neither you nor I would be here without immigration (though it was different then). It doesn't seem fair to shut the door after yourself. CA. goes too far sometimes, I am aware, it is the same with the democratic party (though I doubt I will ever vote for another republican), it is in my opinion partly due to having such a large umbrella, the umbrella has to hold all that cannot fit under the republican party. We need better, good, directed leadership in CA that addresses the very real issues we are facing while allowing some of our more liberal ideals.
Bingo! On many levels. The most pleasant (and least relevant) is my almost mystical nostalgia of living in California many years ago. Mystical because waves of nostalgia would rise up when visiting locales that I had never been to before and recurring if I returned. Thanks for the diversion.
I showed this essay to my wife, a legal immigrant from Peru, last night. Her response: “Finally, someone who feels the way I do!” I second her thoughts.
It’s funny - rereading your piece now, I feel pretty much the EXACT same way about NYC, my birthplace. It’s also a strange mix of the beautiful and ugly, the dreams and the nightmares, the progressive and the ludicrous.
my wife's father was an anchor baby. they came across to El Paso for him to be born and then went back to Mexico and moved back and forth for a while. I grew up in eastern, North Carolina tobacco country and both my grandparents were tobacco farmers. In that context there is quite a lot of wink-wink, nod-nod of folks saying they are opposed to illegal immigration but also knowing the economy would collapse (such as it is there). In the 1970s and 1980s, white and black kids picked all the tobacco, me included. It started changing fast in the mid 1980s and by 1990 or so, no black or white kids did it. Not sure what that all means, if anything, other than I have seen in through working lens. I do 100% agree that having a border is the definition of a nation state, and whom a nation lets in is their choice.
"We need a smarter plan to achieve immigration sovereignty — one that deports criminals and takes national security risks seriously, but that stops short of mass expulsions of law-abiding laborers. Blunt-force deportations will backfire, and I question their morality. Instead, we should shift incentives, better enforce employment laws, and, yes, create guest worker programs and earned paths to citizenship for those who genuinely contribute, as many do."
This is the argument the Democrats made during the Reagan Administration. And what did we get? Amnesty and continued illegal immigration. And path to citizenship guarantees that millions will continue to come here, because they know they can get weaklings like you and many Americans to repeat the cycle over and over. But the rest of us won't be fooled.
You're welcome to your views, and I sympathize with the moral hazard issue. But calling me and others "weaklings" while hiding behind an anonymous account is interesting. If you're going to personally insult me, at least do it under your real identity, coward.
I'll retract my weakling statement if you can explain why anyone with an over room temperature IQ should believe that giving citizenship to millions of people won't invite millions more to come here illegally again since we've already done it twice? And if you say "well we'll also secure the border" I'll just note that that was the promise in the 1980's, and judging by the Democrats desire to fight tooth and nail to prevent any deportations it will be even worse.
You obviously can't seem to weigh multiple variables at once, but that's beside the point. What you're revealing here is that you're such a gamma male that you can't even retract your anonymous insult-hurling without conditions. Blocking you.
There were 11 million illegals in the country 17 years ago, none of whom were given a path to citizenship. Despite that, we saw record numbers of border crossings. Obviously, migrants don't give a fuck about citizenship. They still come knowing they will never get citizenship.
Your mechanism for why people come here is seriously flawed.
This article also ignores the other problems of the 86 amnesty such as the large amounts of fraud where illegals, needing to prove they’d been in the country for years, paid their employers to provide fraudulent documents stating they’d been working for them longer than they had. Also the amnesty expected 1.1 million illegals and instead for something like 2.3 million, a huge underestimate. These are just two of the massive issues with regarding illegals with citizenship or even permanent residency. Forget chain migration which they will be entitled too also so those 25-30+ illegals in the US will then bring in tens of millions more through family reunification migration.
Great article!
Jeff calls for deporting the criminals. I assume by this he does not mean people guilty of the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized entry, (If such "criminals" deserve expulsion, then so does the felon in the White House).
I have no problem with expelling convicted criminals, if it poses no threat to the US (I would oppose deporting a Mexican drug cartel leader serving time in US prison as this would just enable his return to crime). This was standard policy before Trump was first in office. I support creating a path to citizenship for illegals who have lived a long time here--assuming new entrants are prevented from entering illegally.
There was actually the compromise that was being worked out a couple of decades ago. The issue was the immigration hawks wanted assurance that we would control the borders before they would agree to some form of citizenship conversion. Did not happen. And the experience under Biden showed Democrats could not be trusted on the issue. I'm a liberal Democrat and I was appalled when it dug up the stats in border crossing for a discussion right here on Substack.
But I see now the border problem has been solved. Almost no border crossings.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7e01d161-601b-46bd-86e1-530de0a2963a_756x344.png
I don't know what Trump did, but he has solved the immigration problem. If he was a normal politician, he would be making the rounds touting his solution to a crisis that seemed insurmountable a year and a half ago, I mean just look t that graph. A year ago, we were being told that we needed to pass an expensive bill to deal with the influx of migrants across the southern border.
But that is not what Trump is doing. Rather he is performing extraordinary rendition (ER) of "criminals" inside the US, just as we started doing decades ago with terrorists outside of the US. What's next, drone assassinations? Obama ended ER and ramped up drone strikes begun under Bush.
Why stir the pot with these ER actions? What is the objective here?
It’s become a real problem when Americans feel they have to change their views just to be able to participate in Democracy. Or to pretend they’re somebody they’re not just to be included in the debate.
As you thoughtfully describe, the reality of our lives and the world around us is often filled with nuance. Should our views on reality not reflect those nuances?
As it is true in life, so too is it true in policy. There is no such thing as all-benefit and no-cost legislation. There are no policies with only intended outcomes and no unintended consequences. There are always trade-offs, in life as in policy decisions.
To govern may be to choose, but the choice need not always be between one extreme or the other. Balance *is* a choice in its own right.
It is an affirmative position to be advocated for, one to be sought for its own merits. It is not a mushy space of indecision and confusion. It is a purposeful goal and selection in its own right. An often wise and sensible conclusion to reach.
A state of balance has the virtue of reflecting both points of view, giving each side a stake in the outcome. Drawing on the wisdom and perspectives of each side and leaving out what does not fit. This is not crazy. It’s how policymaking used to work.
Our politics will never change so long as people who take such a view as yours feel like it is not their place to say so. It will never get better if people feel that balance is not something they can advocate for and also be heard.
Stay nuanced, Jeff. It suits you. And it suits our system of government too.
The term “threading the needle” is coming up in every second blog and podcast these days. I agree with it.
But it rings hollow in the reality that we must face: very few people are interested in nuance. Never mind left/right. Self-righteousness and dogmatic certainty is back.
And we’re all swimming in this polluted river.
Because the path laid out in the article is a scam. It's the same scam the Democrats pulled during the Reagan administration, and the result will be the same. Millions of new voters and a giant incentive for more illegals to repeat the process. Fuck that, deport them all.
I understand your frustration and message; however, as a proud son of an immigrant, I don’t believe in “pick a side”. I believe in America First as it always should have been.
Yes exactly. The question is what that means in context.
So this is what the essay prompt teased.
I curse my ignorance.
But I salute this great article.
As the child of legal immigrants, I really want what’s best for my home, for there is no place like America 🇺🇸.
Which means listening and finding out a creative solution to this impasse we are in.
I pray we can secure the border without committing needless cruelty.
Thank you
Thanks and no worries.
Great article. I have lived most of my life in CA. I don't want to live anywhere else, given my politics, etc. I have left at times, two fathers and a husband serving in the Navy and Marines. There is much that is good about CA. and a lot left to be desired. I hate our inequality here. I have struggled to some degree most of my life, as many have. My grandparents came here from AL in early 1915, though my family has been in the US since 1610. I agree on immigration; something drastic needs to be done. Why Congress will not bring in people who are smart enough with enough knowledge to help address and come up with a plan that will work long term, I do not understand. I hate what is happening right now, and as for Miller, I believe he has other issues; this is not about actual immigration for him. We need a way forward for those who have been here and built families, own homes, work...I am all for a safe border that functions well, I am not for shutting all people out, nor refusing those coming from countries where they have to leave to live. I do not know how many we can allow into our country and still function well, but I do know that neither you nor I would be here without immigration (though it was different then). It doesn't seem fair to shut the door after yourself. CA. goes too far sometimes, I am aware, it is the same with the democratic party (though I doubt I will ever vote for another republican), it is in my opinion partly due to having such a large umbrella, the umbrella has to hold all that cannot fit under the republican party. We need better, good, directed leadership in CA that addresses the very real issues we are facing while allowing some of our more liberal ideals.
Thanks Rhonda. I love hearing from Californians on this one, and appreciate your perspective.
If I see another Mexican flag I’m gonna lose it bro 😆📷😆😌😉😂
Bingo! On many levels. The most pleasant (and least relevant) is my almost mystical nostalgia of living in California many years ago. Mystical because waves of nostalgia would rise up when visiting locales that I had never been to before and recurring if I returned. Thanks for the diversion.
"Mystical nostalgia" is a cool concept - and very California. Thanks for sharing, as always.
Wasn’t the mass surveillance state here before Trump?
Sure, to a degree
I showed this essay to my wife, a legal immigrant from Peru, last night. Her response: “Finally, someone who feels the way I do!” I second her thoughts.
Thanks and please share my regards.
…turned out great jg…
Thanks so much. I always appreciate your feedback. 🙏🙏
Excellent read. Thank you!
It’s funny - rereading your piece now, I feel pretty much the EXACT same way about NYC, my birthplace. It’s also a strange mix of the beautiful and ugly, the dreams and the nightmares, the progressive and the ludicrous.
Thanks!
my wife's father was an anchor baby. they came across to El Paso for him to be born and then went back to Mexico and moved back and forth for a while. I grew up in eastern, North Carolina tobacco country and both my grandparents were tobacco farmers. In that context there is quite a lot of wink-wink, nod-nod of folks saying they are opposed to illegal immigration but also knowing the economy would collapse (such as it is there). In the 1970s and 1980s, white and black kids picked all the tobacco, me included. It started changing fast in the mid 1980s and by 1990 or so, no black or white kids did it. Not sure what that all means, if anything, other than I have seen in through working lens. I do 100% agree that having a border is the definition of a nation state, and whom a nation lets in is their choice.
Thanks for reading and sharing this article. And more importantly your own pov. Dig a little and we all have these incredible American stories.
Thank you Jeff. I found this helpful in the current storm.
Thanks Rick. Trying to do my part.
Jeff Giesea is half OG Chicano?! This is the representation that Hispanics that have been here for generations have been waiting for!
One quarter. Castizo futurism ftw. :)
My grandmothers name was Concepcion. So is my mother in law!
"We need a smarter plan to achieve immigration sovereignty — one that deports criminals and takes national security risks seriously, but that stops short of mass expulsions of law-abiding laborers. Blunt-force deportations will backfire, and I question their morality. Instead, we should shift incentives, better enforce employment laws, and, yes, create guest worker programs and earned paths to citizenship for those who genuinely contribute, as many do."
This is the argument the Democrats made during the Reagan Administration. And what did we get? Amnesty and continued illegal immigration. And path to citizenship guarantees that millions will continue to come here, because they know they can get weaklings like you and many Americans to repeat the cycle over and over. But the rest of us won't be fooled.
You're welcome to your views, and I sympathize with the moral hazard issue. But calling me and others "weaklings" while hiding behind an anonymous account is interesting. If you're going to personally insult me, at least do it under your real identity, coward.
I'll retract my weakling statement if you can explain why anyone with an over room temperature IQ should believe that giving citizenship to millions of people won't invite millions more to come here illegally again since we've already done it twice? And if you say "well we'll also secure the border" I'll just note that that was the promise in the 1980's, and judging by the Democrats desire to fight tooth and nail to prevent any deportations it will be even worse.
You obviously can't seem to weigh multiple variables at once, but that's beside the point. What you're revealing here is that you're such a gamma male that you can't even retract your anonymous insult-hurling without conditions. Blocking you.
There were 11 million illegals in the country 17 years ago, none of whom were given a path to citizenship. Despite that, we saw record numbers of border crossings. Obviously, migrants don't give a fuck about citizenship. They still come knowing they will never get citizenship.
Your mechanism for why people come here is seriously flawed.
This article also ignores the other problems of the 86 amnesty such as the large amounts of fraud where illegals, needing to prove they’d been in the country for years, paid their employers to provide fraudulent documents stating they’d been working for them longer than they had. Also the amnesty expected 1.1 million illegals and instead for something like 2.3 million, a huge underestimate. These are just two of the massive issues with regarding illegals with citizenship or even permanent residency. Forget chain migration which they will be entitled too also so those 25-30+ illegals in the US will then bring in tens of millions more through family reunification migration.