by liberal japonicus
Going to make two posts from this podcast by Hasan Minaj, but following up on nous’ suggestion of https://podscripts.co/, I found https://www.podchaser.com, which had a transcript for the podcast I want to talk about, where Hasan Minaj interviews Jacob Soboroff about two books he’s written. (Unfortunately, the transcript is raw, so you have to figure out who is talking, so it is not ideal) The first book is entitled Separated: Inside an American Tragedy and Soboroff makes some interesting observations.
The first thing that struck me was this:
And so in the modern era, Bill Clinton instituted a policy called Prevention Through Deterrence, where they built the first wave of border walls to try to force people to go around them into more dangerous and deadly areas, knowing people would die coming into the country. And then George W. Bush, post -911, exponentially increased the size of the border patrol. deported people en masse using a thing called Operation Streamline. Barack Obama deported more people than any president the history of the country. It’s why they called him the deporter -in -chief. And that’s why Donald Trump, like that, could separate 5 ,500 kids from their parents. […] I think it’s just the those are the facts on the ground and that’s how we’ve dealt with this for so long… As a reporter, you know, I heard Joe Biden say [in]] the final presidential debate when 545 kids had still remained separated from their parents and he went up against Donald Trump and Kristen Welker had asked both of them about what they would do and Biden basically stood on this issue the cruelty of the issue as his closing message in the campaign […]] I went to Ukraine, but when I came back they were letting Ukrainians in but not Asian people, black or brown people waiting on the other side of the border who had traveled to Tijuana trying to come into San Diego and seek asylum or seek refuge. And so how do I look at it? I look at it as it’s been sort of part and parcel of American policy for too long. The last person to have a radical departure from the system was Ronald Reagan, who gave amnesty to people who had lived here for a certain amount of time and met certain criteria. And, you know, in his eyes were contributors to American society.
I’ll make another post about Soboroff’s second book, which is about the California wildfires, but about this, I’m wondering if Trump and ICE is a simply the return of the indelible stain of slavery and racism resurfacing again. The idea is a thread that goes thru American literature and, I am thinking that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin made the separation of families her most obvious example of the gross degeneracy of the institution of slavery. One has to be careful, as James Baldwin noted, that in treating this problem as an abstract curse or original sin can have one avoid the actual harms occurring. But in seeing how much the US is going to hell in a handbasket, I can’t help but think of the recrudescence of our past.
The title is a Toni Morrison coinage, from the novel Beloved, and to me, it suggests that the trauma and painful behaviors of the past reemerge, over and over again, until they are dealt with. So Sogoroff’s discussion of the persistence of family separation, across administrations of both parties, made me think of that. Anyway, a thread to discuss this and related things.
… because Biden made it easier for Ukrainians to get in – because Russia was and is bombing them – right?
that’s not racism. that’s humanitarianism.
I took it as allowing the Ukrainians on the background of keeping out all the rest.
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we’re being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What’s the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that’s apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they’ll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I’m understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this “spends the money here, not elsewhere.” At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It’s bad for us, too, but either they can’t see that or they just assume it won’t impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We’ve seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
wj – Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
I can understand the desire to simplify the way we talk about immigration in order to reframe the asylum seekers in an empathetic way – to put ourselves in their shoes. That’s an essential strategy in this age of tech driven propaganda and outrage.
I do worry, however, that this simplification might obscure the degree to which economics and safety are entangled with climate.
When a Salvadoran farmer can’t afford to buy seeds because his crops keep getting ruined, climate is economics. When groups of farmers like him become desperate and have to go to the city where they have no place to live and no aid, they find themselves at the mercy of the gangs in the cities, both economics and safety. To avoid the violence of working for the gangs, they have to find somewhere else to go, which means paying the gangs to take them someplace safer.
But all of that starts with the climate making their rural agricultural lives unlivable. Climate change is a threat and vulnerability multiplier. It’s hugely destabilizing. Decarbonization and humanitarian aid work together to reduce threat, and ignoring the ways that they are entangled undercuts our ability to reduce the economic hardship and the political instability that drives mass migration.
WRT the Toni Morrison reference in the title, her “rememory,” and my research about trauma has made me aware of how “remember” can be thought of (figuratively, not as a literal etymology) as “re-membering.” When we remember trauma we should be thinking about how to restore wholeness to a psyche that has lost a part of itself. It’s the psyche’s equivalent of an amputation. The old narrative that gave one’s life continuity has been severed and a part of oneself that once seemed intrinsic has become an object outside of one’s control.
This sort of figurative thinking plays into my focus on restorative justice. People and societies need to be made whole, or be remade or given back a sense of wholeness.
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving — that puts a big weight on the side of “I think I’ll just stay where I am and work on doing better here.” Most people don’t like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage “get worse more slowly” and “not get as much worse”. But that’s the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
I quickly dashed off my comment before bed, so let me expand on it a bit.
I can understand cleek’s reaction, and the acceptance of Ukrainians was/is a humanitarian impulse. But would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?
Because of the disjunction of the Trump presidency, anecdotes don’t really work here. And with the example of Reagan, who I detest, perhaps the only way to move forward is to turn away from what actually happened and come up with bullshit narratives about our past and how we somehow are ‘the greatest” of nations.
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
In a better world, we would be putting our resources into the Global South to help them address climate change. Reducing desertification, creating off grid power, mangrove and rain forest protection and restoration would all have an impact. Unfortunately, the Western model has us look at these sorts of things as extractive, and to be accepted, they have to generate a profit for the people putting money into them.
But would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?
No. There is no rational justification for making that case, unlike the Ukraine example.
“would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?”
Russia is not dropping bombs on the heads of white South Africans.
And I’m not sure it’s accurate to say there isn’t a humanitarian motivation to let those Asian, black, and brown people in, then or now. The safety concern wjca mentions is tangible for many of those folks.
I think the Reagan administration was a negative tipping point for this country, but I absolutely give him credit for the amnesty he granted to folks who were here and contributing. I was living in a predominantly Dominican neighborhood in Salem at the time, and folks were getting booted out who were contributing to the commnity in huge ways.
I’d like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don’t think we have. I’m not sure if it’s a matter of re-remembering, I don’t think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say “as a nation” because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say “in the process.” Still huge, but decreasing — not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That’s what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
wj – I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say “as a nation” because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not.
As a nation I think we have been here before, which is to say that as a nation we are currently in the midst of the sort of self-sorting that leads to us actually being two nations mixed up in one sack. We have two very different nationalisms facing off and in open conflict with each other.
The question is whether this leads to a forced reunification (as in the Civil War) or into some form of collapse, or just a prolonged dysfunction and are supplanted on the world stage.
I am not optimistic that we can put the toothpaste back into the tube this time.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
I’m not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
I’m not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we’ve gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn’t dispute that. He’s definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I’d say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That’s a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
Weimar was also far progressed beyond imperial Germany in cultural things (including full equal rights for minorities, in particular Jews, and full equality for women seeming just around the corner).
Then came the Nazis and after WW2 a conservative restauration under Adenauer. Women reached de jure equality not before the 1970ies (before that husbands still had veto power despite nominally equal rights as per the West German constitution).
A throwback of a half or even a full century is thus easily possible and the US reactionaries have imo a fair chance to achieve that in our lifetimes.
Oh my God, I’m just listening to Trump’s press conference. It’s one of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever seen. He’s currently boasting about how many ICE guys are “hispanics”, and how great hispanics are. But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message. Jesus Christ. How is it possible that anyone can see this and not think this man has to be removed from the presidency?
when a political party loves power more than anything, it can excuse almost anything.
But the overwhelming impression is of a crazy old guy with dementia just going on, and on and on in a totally uncontrolled, rambling fashion with zero sense and concept of a message.
when a political party loves power more than anything, it can excuse almost anything.
Déjà vu all over again.
ask Grok to make you a list of all the times Biden threatened to blow up NATO because one of our allies wouldn’t give us part of its territory.
Maybe one shouldn’t start with the baseline assumption that immigration is a problem.
Biden’s cabinet was qualified and within normal parameters, and he at least was competent in his lucid moments. Trump’s are all Project 2025 dictator wannabes and Coup Cuck Clansmen, and he himself has always been awful.
Oh, and by the way, the NYT editorial board today say that during his administration he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It’s almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/20/opinion/editorials/trump-wealth-crypto-graft.html?unlocked_article_code=1.F1A.0fka.QvU7sikLo6lz&smid=url-share
Well, it’s been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
https://theonion.com/stephen-miller-reminds-picky-eater-son-that-there-starving-kids-in-basement/
I don’t know that they can tell the truth. I don’t think they have it in them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/22/white-house-ice-protest-arrest-altered-image
Oh, I think they could.
It’s just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes “alternate reality” is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
It says something about the character of these people that they would lie about making someone cry – not that they made someone cry and denied it, but that they didn’t make someone cry while falsely claiming they did.
What kind of people are they trying to appeal to?
I’m sure it has more to do with making the protesters look like weak little babies than beating their chests about making someone cry, but it boils down to the same thing as far as I can tell.
“Ve haf vays of making you (look like) cry(ing)”
Our agentz are sooo tuff, that ve can make the worst of the worst (certainly all members of Friends of Antigua) look like frightened old n-word ladies. Gif us moor time and ve make them look like toddlers and infants next. Ve haf az of jet not decided whether to add or remove bullet holes buy our magick Ey-Aye.
>What kind of people are they trying to appeal to?
the same kind of insecure oafs who think mocking people who aren’t just like them improves their lives, who think rolling coal is a good response to people who are just trying to ride a bike, who think life-size decals of a tied-up Biden make their trucks cool, who think mor gunz is mor tuff, who think a C-list celebrity game-show host and twice-divorced incest-curious NYC real-estate hustler is a good man simply because he makes a good show out of hating Democrats: the Republican base.