I loved how these articles (and video) took on similar topics – comparisons and analyses of Trump and Biden’s immigration policies – and still felt like vastly differently articles. I’m continuing to approach our weekly readings as “example of craft,” (and then waffling between that and whether I should think about policy, but whatever) so I was focused on the way they all transmitted their information. The first article, which takes on a historical perspective, was really powerful in building out patterns and providing a strong argument for why Trump’s plan won’t work. But at the same time, there were ambiguities, and that historical focus felt unexciting if that’s fair to say – not boring by any means, but I can’t imagine it captured public attention. Jonathan Blitzer’s article, meanwhile, did a great job of politically analyzing. It used lots of data, maintained clarity through well-defined points, and also had some entertainment factor. The article written by Taladrid, however, was my favorite – and I realize the goal of these readings isn’t value judgment, but I only point that out to notice my own taste in writing. I found the narrative about Bárcena, whose description could’ve been a profile, really compelling. It entertained me, and at the same time the narrative was used to tell a fantastic story about the border and about US-Mexico relations. I was particularly impressed by the pangs of data which pierced the narrative flow – references to Biden’s border-enforcement budget compared to his budget for root causes of migration, “we’re trading one and a half million dollars per minute.” In my own writing, I realize I tend towards preferring narrative, but I want to take the lesson of purposeful data from this article. Using tight, concise, and sparse data points managed to make a deeper impact than a paragraph of data would have. Just something for me to think of going forward.

The monetary/political aspect of the border really caught my attention this week. By highlighting trade-relations between Mexico and the United States, I felt like Taladrid brought up the often-unseen part of politics – an affirmation of how imaginary harsh border policies are, his article showed that mutual exchange is necessary for the survival of both countries. In this context, “closing the border,” and other enforcement techniques felt as political as López Obrador’s new airport. I felt like Blitzer’s article did an amazing job of showing the border as a political issue too; seeing Republican pushback against Biden’s border bill, when it’s something that they would support if one of their politicians raised it, shows the absurdity of the political game. More than anything, it maybe shows the benefit Trump and other Republicans get from illegal immigration – they can mobilize the topic, and therefore use it to gain more votes.

After Tuesday’s debate, it felt impossible to read these articles without thinking about Kamala’s insertion into this conversation. When immigration came up as a topic, I remember feeling the air leave the room I was in – there’s an understanding (one shown by Taladrid in Mexico’s double-bind, where they fear helping Trump get reelected) that any conversation around immigration will go Trump’s way. Kamala managed to rope-a-dope, which the media loved, but not before making certain statements about border security. The parallels between her and Biden were clear, and it felt, again, like a very political move. My final comment is that I find it super interesting how, when immigrants from other countries come to the US, those countries feel the pressure. While Mexico tries not to make their border policies based solely on American interests, I was wondering how Haitian news outlets might be reacting to Trump’s comments about Springfield.