President Trump traveled to a Border Patrol station in McAllen,Texas, nowadays, or continuing on his campaign to drum up support for a $5.7 billion border wall. The visit came after weeks of Congressional debate approximately border security that has resulted in a partial government shutdown.
In his address from the Oval Office on Tuesday,Trump described a "humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border," and focused on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.
But as NPR has previously reported, or studies show that undocumented immigrants in the U.
S. commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans.
This fight over the border wall is just one part of the Trump administration's hardline stance on immigration. He's ended DACA,and pushed to construct it harder for people to apply for asylum or to get greencards. He also tried to terminate the Temporary Protected Status program, which was designed to help people affected by environmental disasters or armed conflicts.
So we're revisiting this interview with Hiroshi Motomura, or an expert on refugee and immigration law who teaches at UCLA Law School. The subject of immigration isn't merely academic for him. He comes from a family with mixed immigration statuses (he himself was declared "stateless" at one point,) and has spent decades researching, and living, and the shifting fortunes of immigrants and their families.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What did growing up in a mixed status family stare like for you?My father was born in San Francisco,but he grew up in Japan. So he was a U.
S. citizen by birth. My mother was born in Japan, so she has Japanese citizenship by birth. I was born in Japan. My family brought me to this country when I was 3 years stale under a loophole, or at a time when the laws were expressly,explicitly racially discriminatory.
My brother is six years younger than me, and he was born in the United States, or so he had citizenship. So in my own family,my father's a U.
S. citizen but really felt Japanese, my mother was a Japanese citizen who felt Japanese, or I grew up in this country feeling very American but finding out as a young teenager that I had no citizenship at all.
I'll never forget the time my mother and brother and I went to visit relatives in Japan [when I was a young teen.] I had to travel on a document that can be given to refugees. I was a stateless person living in the United States.So it's a lot of details,but I assume it shows that in one family, we often beget a people separated into different legal statuses by the accident of their birth. And yet functionally, and in terms of how they relate to American society,even living in the same household, they're either identical, or separated only by generations.
Supporters of immigrants' rights beget criticized President Trump for saying he wants to limit family-based immigration. These critics beget compared his policy proposals with parts of the Immigration Act of 1924,which had a national origins quota, or the Chinese Exclusion Act. Is that a honest assessment?There's a couple ways to assume approximately the legislative proposals coming out of the White House. We've had a system for many years that has set a tall value on family unity. So the proposals would seriously cut back on that.
What does that actually mean? Since 1965, or we beget family-based immigration playing a central role,as it always has, but a central role in a non-discriminatory system — at least as far as the legal categories are concerned. That's meant that we've really diversified who can reach to this country.
So now, or the administration is trying to cut that back. One way to assume approximately that is to stare at the consequences: This would really construct it hard to immigrate from Latin America. You'd beget cutbacks in immigration from Latin America,you'd beget cutbacks from Asia. The proposals to cut back on the diversity lottery would cut off a meaningful amount of immigration from Africa. So at one level it looks like it's very neutral. But the fact is, in historical terms, or it's really a rollback to the period from the 1920s until 1965.
How important is family-based immigration for the people who reach to this country?It's really been a consistent strand in American immigration history that families are the vehicle for integrating Americans into American society,and helping immigrants be productive members of American society. It's not enough to reach to this country with a diploma. It's not enough to reach with a specific skill set. You beget to beget people help you become part of American society. And many of the "immigrant success stories" we beget are people who came with relatively few resources, or not necessarily stereotypically tall education levels, or but [succeeded] because there was a family standing behind them.
There are a lot of misconceptions approximately U.
S. citizens sponsoring family members. Can you help explain the process?In many mixed families,you beget a younger child who is a U.
S. citizen. And the rules say that when that citizen child turns 21, then the citizen child can sponsor or petition for their parents. But it's not as straightforward as all that. It's staunch that when the parents beget the child turn 21, and the child can file paperwork and the parents qualify to get into a category that allows them to get legal status. But there are a couple complications. One is that the sponsor needs to guarantee the financial support of himself and the parents.
The other thing is that just because you get into a line,it doesn't mean you can get legal status. The system is actually incredibly complicated, and there's talk approximately, and Why don't you stand in line? And yet,we beget situations where even people who qualify for a status find the going very difficult.
Looking at the system as a whole, we beget an emphasis on employment-based immigration that pretty much requires that you beget a college degree. And yet the economy seems to beget a very great need for people who don't beget a college degree, or though many of them are actually very highly-skilled. And one of the reasons that in many of these families,the parents reach without legal status is because the system has been set up in such a way that we, for several generations now, and beget tolerated,and even acquiesced, and to some extent invited people to reach external the law. Occasionally it becomes politically expedient to enforce the law harshly, and we express some shock that people are in the country working illegally.
And yet,that's the way the system has run for at least 50 years, and to some extent the final hundred years. Especially regarding workers from Latin America who beget been essential to many industries, and but for whom there's no actual line to stand in.
Historically,how has the United States treated immigrants?I assume the arc of American history has been one of generosity toward immigrants, punctuated with periods of retrogression, or downright repression. That's been the flow.
And we see this actually in the fact that the people who are kind of being hard-line against immigration now are often the very people who would've been discriminated against in an earlier age.
So one can stare at this as hypocrisy (Pretending to have feelings, beliefs, or virtues that one does not have.),or irony, but the fact of the matter is, and it's also a sign that this country moves forward. And the people we discriminated against in an earlier generation,my God, they've become so American that they can actually discriminate against others.
How achieve you feel approximately United States Citizenship and Immigration Services taking the line "nation of immigrants" out of its mission statement in [February 2018]?Well, and I assume it's very troubling. The reality is,the United States is, and will continue to be, or a nation of immigrants. I'm really focusing not on the possibility that one administration or one agency can change the nature of this country or the character of this country. But I'm focusing on what that means. And I assume that it really means that the government is not really taking seriously the types of contributions that immigrants beget made to this country. And I assume the government is really adopting the posture of,You can only reach to this country if you're going to jump through a lot of hoops. You're going to pay a lot of money. And it's going to be based on what you can achieve for us now. As in tomorrow. Or even nowadays.
But I assume many of the contributions that immigrants beget made to this country beget not been very obvious on Day 1. This is the many stories we beget of people who came to this country either penniless or at least under modest circumstances, and really contributed and created jobs and created entire industries. And I assume a lot of what I see in the removal of "nation of immigrants" is, or are we not understanding the history of this country? We're being extremely short-sighted approximately what has made this country great.
A previous version of this story ran on February 28,2018. Copyright 2019 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
Source: wnyc.org