Month: November 2024 (Page 3 of 6)

Reading the Preston article post-election was really interesting. She provides a clear roadmap for what’s about to come – and how dangerous it could be. The article was everything I had heard about the two immigration stances rolled into one article. I think she summarized the two candidates’ policy positions really well – especially that Trump’s position and policies are based in racist and violent rhetoric.

For Harris: “curbing unauthorized border crossings and fixing the dysfunctional U.S. asylum system—a central driver of the growing disorder at the southern border over the past decade. She aims to build more secure and orderly channels for migrants to enter the country while also opening pathways for undocumented immigrants already settled in the United States to attain legal status”

For Trump: “Trump has promised to extend enforcement far into the interior, unleashing a nationwide blitz of punitive deportations to forcibly expel millions of immigrants. He also wants to limit new legal immigration”

She aptly uses Springfield as an example of Trump’s words having consequences and notes that he has said he will target those (legal) migrants first in his mass deportation plan. I also appreciated how she summarized his policy during his last presidential term and how those policies (especially Title 42) didn’t necessarily work as a deterrance. Promises left unfulfilled, leading to chaos.

Her section on the Biden and Harris administration border policy was also well written. She backs up her claim that “Despite the return of a semblance of order to the border, the political damage to Democrats was done” very well. This is especially for when she is discussing how the administration had to clean up what Trump left behind.

My biggest question for this piece concerns the format and placement. Preston writes it herself: immigration was one of, if not the most important topic for voters in the 2024 election. And perhaps this is making an assumption here, but I don’t think the average voter is reading Foreign Affairs – nor would read a long-form explanation and analysis like this. The attention span is limited – perhaps bullet points or a shorter analysis, with a longer explanation as an option. And it seems like the average Foreign Affairs reader would already be informed enough to have made a decision about immigration policy already. So who is this for?

In support of the roadmap that Preston laid out, Graham shows that now Trump has won the election, how is is planning to carry out his policies. To quote the headline, he is serious about the deportations. I appreciated how clearly Graham laid out the various people and roles (especially the sentence “If Miller is the architect of mass deportation, Homan will be the builder.”). It will be interesting to watch how closely this plan comes to reality, especially given how many laws would be broken and how devastating it would be to the economy should the plan be carried out. It certainly will be a story to watch – will he truly start in Springfield like he said? Will he truly deport all those millions of people? How will industries like agriculture be affected?

I really enjoyed these articles, in how they help visualize the writing process. Particularly with Rosenthal’s article, I was reminded of the classic video of Kurt Vonnegut drawing story structures on a blackboard; I’m continually reminded of the benefits forays into fiction-style provide. Drawing from other genres of writing, and thinking about journalism as the collision between narrative and informational, hopefully will inform my writing a little more. Great quote from George Saunders (which I’m going to butcher) along the lines of “ you should write how you talk and think, so talk the way you want to write,” which more generally I think applies to the idea that our output is founded in curation of our input. Reading varied writing that I appreciate is the best way to write how I’d like to. I also was interested in the way McPhee celebrated the theme-driven story narrative, in opposition to the chronological one; I wanted to read Preston’s article analyzing its structure, so I broke it up and was happy to find it constantly disrupted chronology. It started in the present election, jumped back to 2021, moved forward, then jumped back to 2016 and moved forward, then jumped to the present, only for a brief encounter with Eisenhower in the far-past. I see how this structure works – and it works well for this analytical / opinion style article – but I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to do something thematic for my longform article. I was just writing out a layout, and I’m wondering how to plan my article before getting the sources and interviews? Is that even a good idea, or should i just immerse and figure it out after? Hard to know how much to prepare without it interfering with my openness to change, in the moment of reporting. 

Despite really enjoying these articles, I’m having a hard time immediately transferring them to my practice. One thing I got from the McPhee piece was how personal his process is – it feels very dependent on the kind of person you are. He talks about the personalized system that was created for him on Kedit; we now have so many different programs we could use, but choosing one is daunting. There’s a turn towards online softwares, and I agree that they’re helpful; transcription softwares especially save so much time, and google drive does a great job of keeping my information backed up and easily accessible. My immediate thoughts were 1) people are turning towards AI to help in their articles… I get that it’s a helpful tool, but I worry that it’ll take away creative potential and limit me, so I don’t use it. It feels like journalism is dependent on work – the best articles are ones where you can tell how much time the author put into them, and that work is unavoidable. But do tools like AI help us cut out the unnecessary work, or just constrict our whole process? 2) on the opposite hand (!) I’m still a huge proponent of paper and analog work. Maybe it’s just because I can romanticize the article-creating process better when I imagine myself working with sprawled papers (and I think being able to romanticize your work process is one of the few ways of keeping yourself constantly engaged) but I really enjoy working with paper; I also just feel more personally connected to the work when I can hold it. Regardless, this is making me want to start printing everything I write to engage with it that way. Regardless of the actual process, I was really grateful for the way McPhee treats writing with a “i’ll do my best,” mindset. Especially in a class of really dedicated students, I think we have to submit to the story’s will. If the effort’s been put in, it’s been put in. Learning when to put the pen down, or close the computer, will probably make our final results better.

“The way that vulnerable immigrant communities feel about the election is that he has been given license to do whatever he wants to do.” Reverend Juan Carlos Ruiz will not say Donald Trump’s name. The Reverend Pastor of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, explains as he cradles a sleeping child, “Whoever is the head sets the tone for the whole body politic.”

Almost two weeks have passed since President Donald Trump won the election to become the 47th President of the United States. In his first campaign for the Presidency in 2016, Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric focused on preventing migrants from reaching the US. He famously promised to “build a wall” on the US-Mexico border. This time, Trump has campaigned on deporting immigrants who are already in the US. Back in May, he told a campaign rally in Freeland, Michigan, “On day one, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” In August, incoming Vice President J.D Vance told ABC News’ Jon Karl, “I think it’s interesting that people focus on, well, how do you deport 18 million people? Let’s start with 1 million. That’s where Kamala Harris has failed. And then we can go from there.” Although Trump’s campaign has not fleshed out exactly how his administration will go about mass deportations, immigration activists, lawyers, and aid organizations across the country are bracing themselves for the coming storm. Memories of Trump’s last term in office run deep. This time, however, there will be no surprises.

In “The Real Choice on Immigration,” Julia Preston brilliantly contrasts the vision of U.S. migration governance that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented during their respective campaigns. She points out that Trump’s approach relies on provocative language and policies that resonate widely with the public, without any sensitivity to what is moral or feasible. In fact, while Trump has been roundly criticized for his talk about immigrants—including by members of the conservative party—many people believe that his approach is effective in reducing the number of immigrants at the southern border, even if it offends the social conscience. One of Preston’s main arguments is that this perception is wrong. She argues that Trump has wasted resources on temporary solutions—such as strict enforcement at the border and in communities or on building up the border—rather than on long-term solutions. For Preston, Harris’s approach is more grounded in practical solutions that address concerns about the porous southern border, realize America’s humanitarian aspirations, and recognize the economic necessity of migrants. She writes that Harris “is proposing practical reforms to fortify the border and overhaul the immigration process in line with the nation’s labor needs and humanitarian aspirations” while “Trump proposes an exclusionist project that would not only bring turmoil and hardship to communities across the country but would also do long-term damage to the U.S. economy and undermine the United States’ global reputation”.

This article was published in the run-up to the US elections in late October, which explains why the author wrote it as a “choice” between two opposing visions of US immigration policy and ultimately presented Harris’s as the most desirable for the United States. However, I believe that outside of an electoral context, there is actually a false dichotomy between the approaches proposed by the two parties. I think it’s worth acknowledging that both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted to the right in terms of their positions on immigration policy. This explains why Biden’s recent moves are in line with what conservative members of Congress would have supported had Trump not insisted on torpedoing any initiative that appears to address the border. It also explains why Biden and Harris supported the bill even though it does not include provisions for a more durable solution and fixes to the country’s asylum system. Preston herself writes that “in its current form, the bill is heavy on Republican enforcement priorities and does not address Democrats’ most long-standing reform demands, particularly for pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, farm workers, and spouses of American citizens”. Rather than a “tactical” and strategic campaign decision by Harris, I believe that the positions on this bill are an indicator of the future of American policy in terms of migration governance, which means a shift towards more restrictive policies, regardless of the political affiliations of the proponents. Understanding this broader structural implication is important because it allows us to move away from individual platforms to understand the changing trends in US foreign affairs and domestic politics. In other words, Harris was not going to save us either.

Julia Preston’s piece in Foreign Affairs was a damning indictment of Trump’s migration rhetoric and a warning of what would come with his election. It was written in October as a plea to not underestimate the danger of a Trump presidency or to discount his nativist rhetoric. It’s a bit surreal reading it now, two weeks after he was elected. It feels like we’re marching towards an abyss of fear, chaos and uncertainty. How are we meant to be, as journalists and as people, in a society where truth seems to make no difference?

Preston’s piece was one of countless pieces outlining the blatant mistruths spread about migrants and about Kamala Harris’ record. “In a relentless barrage of mistruths, Trump insists that the influx of undocumented migrants under Biden is on the order of 21 million people, a wholly made-up figure,” Preston wrote. But none of it pierced through or seemed to make a difference. I admit to feeling pretty lost – how do we move forward if the truth doesn’t matter? What is the role of journalism if calling out blatant lies and hatred doesn’t seem to make a difference?

On a more tangible note, I thought that Preston made a concise and compelling explanation of how devastating mass deportations would be on every level. She spoke of individual trauma, family separation, community destabilization, and the incredible blow to the economy. She wrote of how Harris had planned to build legal pathways “for undocumented immigrants, especially the farm workers who make up nearly half of the nation’s agricultural labor force.” In research for my sociology class, I stumbled upon a staggering figure: one out of nineteen civilian workers in the United States are undocumented (Gleeson). “Trump’s plan to shrink the country’s labor force, Posen wrote, “‘is both broadly and deeply self-destructive,’” Preston wrote.

Another important part of Preston’s article was on the total dysfunction of the asylum system. The system was created in the 1980s, and was “never designed to handle large numbers of migrants,” Preston wrote. Before hearing Preston speak at the church in New York, I had no idea of the history of the asylum process. Speaking with her has emphasized how important it is to understand the history, intention, and practice of migration laws – a daunting task given the extreme vagueness and complexity of the system. “Since 2010,” Preston wrote, “changes in the populations that were migrating, and the failure of Congress to update the system with new legal channels for refugees and laborers, have made asylum the default access for migrants coming to the southwest border.” The border crisis is fostered and fed by dysfunctional and destructive immigration policies that were not designed to deal with migration as it is today.

The next four years under Trump are terrifying – I hope we finally start to take him seriously now that he’s been elected, for as David Graham wrote, “If personnel is policy, as the Ronald Reagan–era maxim states, then the president-elect is deadly serious.”

The Preston reading, particularly post-election, highlighted the fact that fear-inducing narratives and anecdotes (even when they are untruthful) have more political purchase than data-driven and sound policy when it comes to immigration. It’s frustrating to me that people are voting for things based off of politically-charged quips and fabricated narratives instead of from a place of actually understanding, as Preston laid out, both Harris’s and Trump’s track record and proposed policies.

That being said, I do not agree with all of Harris’s immigration policies. Particularly raising the legal standard for proving that you are part of a PSG concerns me. While the proposed expedited review process will help with backlogs at EOIR and USCIS, I’m worried about new arrivals who will not have legal representation, who might otherwise have meritorious claims.

While I definitely do not agree with Harris’s policies on immigration, as Preston points out, they are undoubtedly better than Trump’s. People would understand that Harris has more sound policies if they would take the time to learn about her policies in comparison to Trump’s record. Yet these “punchy” narratives seem to carry more political weight in voters’ eyes. I’m curious to know what people think about how (or even whether) we can fight against these fear-inducing narratives that seem to capture more voters than sound policy that offers a practical solution—and whether journalism might have a role to play in this.

Towards the end of the article Preston highlights an important point that I think is often neglected in discussions about immigration: that immigration is a public safety issue. As she points out, if mixed status families and undocumented immigrants fear being deported by police officers or fear having their status questioned by officers they will actively avoid reporting any kind of crime that occurs. I think Trump has led his constituents to believe that new arrivals or undocumented people are somehow separate from the community of people that are documented, but as we’ve discussed in class, these people are deeply enmeshed in their communities. Particularly given the fact that Governor Abbott has made a conscious attempt to bus new arrivals to cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia where interpersonal violence is already extremely concentrated to begin with, we should be concerned about the implications Trump’s plan for mass deportation will have with respect to reporting crime in these areas. It seems, unsurprisingly, counterintuitive to me that the issues that Trump is running on—which include fearmongering about a “rise in crime”—are going to be perpetuated (not solved) by the policies that he plans to implement.

Initially, what drew my attention was the Preston’s article about the amount of actionable planning that Trump was doing toward deportation. He spent his entire campaign pushing this agenda, but now that he has the power to appoint people in power, we see that there is this deep desire to fulfill the threats he made. But the how still remains a mystery to most.

Once in office, he followed through with harsh policies like mass deportations, raids on homes and workplaces, and strict border enforcement. For example, his administration used an old law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to send agents into communities, separating families and causing disruptions in schools and businesses. Which opens the question of what he might

The leaders he appointed, like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, pushed these policies aggressively. Trump also used strong language, calling migrants “predators” and blaming them for crime, unemployment, and even inflation. While this kind of talk energized some of his supporters, it may have worsened stereotypes and divisions.

At first, these policies seemed to have an effect—border crossings dropped during Trump’s first six months in office. But as time went on, migrants adapted. By December 2023, U.S. authorities recorded 250,000 unlawful crossings in one month, a record number. This shows how migration patterns take time to adjust, and the impact of policies isn’t always immediate. Migrants often weigh risks and conditions at home before deciding to leave, so the effects of enforcement measures might not fully show up for years. How do we feel about the delay in migration patterns? Should we give policies more time to work before judging their success or failure? This delay is quite contrasting to the digital age we live in so how does this contribute to issues of information getting to people? What role should public opinion play in shaping immigration policies, especially when the issue is so polarizing?

On top of that, these policies caused problems for communities. Long delays in court left migrants stuck in limbo, while residents grew frustrated with what they saw as a strain on local resources. Policies focused mainly on punishment may not address the root causes of migration, like violence or lack of opportunities in migrants’ home countries. As well as what kind of support are these communities getting for this process?

What makes the article so effective is how it explores the gray area between the extremes of immigration policy. It highlights the urgency of securing borders by Trump’s enforcement-focused measures. These policies, while aimed at deterring unlawful migration, often created new problems, such as humanitarian crises, family separations, and overburdened resources. The article makes it clear that while enforcement may be necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to address the complexities of migration.

On the other hand, the article also delves into Harris’s preventative strategies, which aim to address the root causes of migration by creating stability and opportunity in migrants’ home countries. Programs under her leadership, such as job creation and workforce training in Central America, demonstrate that investment in long-term solutions can reduce migration. However, these efforts fall short when it comes to addressing the immediate chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, where record numbers of people are arriving, often fleeing violence or economic collapse.

By presenting both perspectives, the article effectively illustrates that neither approach alone is enough to solve the problem. Enforcement without compassion can exacerbate suffering and strain systems, while long-term solutions can feel disconnected from the urgent realities at the border. The real challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, one that considers both the human and systemic aspects of migration.
How can policymakers better balance enforcement and humanitarian concerns to create effective immigration policies?

I am really interested in how people think of and understand the border crisis. I think Preston’s piece does a really good job of framing how people misunderstand Trump and Harris’ respective records on the border as well as their plans. Trump only built 85 miles of wall during his presidency despite campaigning on building a wall! I also didn’t realise how many of the issues right now at the border are actually because of Trump: because he torpedoed the bipartisan border security bill and because his regulations shut down asylum courts during his first presidency (this was just mentioned in passing but seems quite significant to the current 5-year delays in asylum hearings). By contrast, Harris and Biden seem to have been more effective in reducing the number of crossings and gesturing towards a perhaps more functional asylum and border system. Yet, somehow, they are still seen as weak on the border. Preston’s piece does a good job of tallying the respective policy records, I think most Americans simply don’t understand the economic necessity of migration. It’s equally possible that many do, and they just don’t care. Obviously the article was written before the election, but I wonder if mainstream media coverage will point to white nationalism as a cause for Trump’s election. That seems like a course of action that may well be true to a large extent but also alienating to readers. I remember at the start of the class we discussed how much of people’s resistance to immigration was rooted in racism. I think I remember our answer being inconclusive. Has our answer to that question changed since the election? Does an explicit white nationalist winning the popular vote change our answer? My thinking is that it lends more weight to the idea that some or even many people were motivated by racism. I think a large part of Trump’s winning comes from people seeing immigration as a zero-sum game. It’s hard to think of a country as anything other than a place with finite resources, even if economic growth and innovation mean the truth is actually more complicated. In that context, thousands of people continuously arriving at the southern border, Preston’s article said 250k arrived in one month when Mexico temporarily stopped patrolling, feels unsustainable and the root of all social and economic issues in a very grounded and common sense way, even if economists are telling you that’s not how it works. I also think about Trump winning in the context of the migrants we met in Brooklyn telling us that settled Latinos had been very unsupportive of them when they arrived. In spite of Trump’s white nationalism, I wonder if settled immigrants also see new arrivals as a threat to their resources. I also wonder if settled immigrants don’t like the fact that new arrivals draw attention to their own foreignness, so that they worry that they, too, will be perceived as non-immigrants in the same way. I think this would have been very hard to do, but I do think a consideration of immigration policy needs to consider what voters are associating with migration. For example, how much of the inflationary crisis was blamed on immigrants in voters’ minds?

The next big question is what is going to happen when Trump comes into power. I agree that the appointments of Tom Homan and Stephen Miller to the head of ICE and white house deputy chief of staff, respectively, indicate Trump intends to follow through on his campaign pledges. So, I suppose the question is how bad will the impact really be and will those impacts change people’s minds about immigration? Almost 50% of farm workers in the US are undocumented migrants, so there could very reasonably be food shortages or at least inflation. Will Trump be able to conjure a new enemy then?

I thought that Julia Preston’s piece was an extremely elegant and accessible look into the divisive choice that voters were making in regard to immigration policy during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. I found that the historical context, existing policies, the moral dilemma of immigration, misinformation, and ideological conflict of the issue were effectively condensed into an extremely easy-to-follow piece.

At a fundamental structural level, this article makes me think about the writing structure articles we are assigned for class. The piece starts with a lede that situates the reader in the present, and the most urgent issue of the article which is the impending decision that the American population had to make. Preston spotlights the central question which is that the views of Harris and Trump on immigration seem to have converged to a certain extent. However, she makes clear that this is only a surface level analysis of their take on border policy, and begins to delve into the main body of the article.

Once the reader has been taken through her outlining of migration policy history and each candidate’s vision, she returns to the starting idea of this decision–-one that initially seemed to be rooted in a clash of beliefs, but more fundamentally is established in “a battle of competence” between the two. I found that these insights really sorted out the questions I had about how different these administrations’ approaches to immigration were, and this wrapped the article up in a very neat way.

I do not believe that this piece is labelled strongly as an opinion piece, yet at times, to me it comes off as one due to how anti-Trump policy the messaging is within the writing. The core of the piece rests in a factual foundation: of how border strategy has evolved across these two administrations and the offensive, misleading rhetoric that Trump has spurred is quoted.

This led to me to think about a broader question about journalistic integrity, which is how journalists manage the seeping through of personal opinion within writing. Obviously, based on when we spoke to Julia Preston in New York, she was a strong advocate of the Harris campaign. However, with immigration correspondence covering the election, talk about “nativism” and Trump’s rhetoric has bred distrust within right-wing supporters; fact-checking is seen as a violation of free speech and rests at the core of a lot of right-wing criticism about how the presidential and VP debates were conducted.

A statistic that I found quite surprising and pivotal was the Gallup poll this July that revealed 5 percent of adults said they favored lower immigration, the first time since 2005 that a majority held that negative view. This echoes a global shift that is breeding an anti-migrant sentiment, so how much can this shift be attributed to the Biden administration’s failures at the border? How about to Republican efforts to spread this opinion, like Greg Abbott’s bussing efforts?

Upon searching for Manuel Monterrosa on Instagram or YouTube, viewers can scroll through several reels, pictures, and videos that show Monterrosa’s journey through the Darien Gap.  Manuel Monterrosa is a self-identifiable “migration influencer,” posting content related to migrating to the United States to better aid migrants attempting to complete the journey themselves. He explained that he began posting on these platforms during his original journey to the United States only to recognize the profitable aspect of his content. Not only that,  but Monterrosa takes pride in his 39.3k followers on Instagram and his ability to help other migrants. Using his platform to provide trustworthy information,  He emphasizes that social media has only aided in spreading misinformation regarding immigration. For many who need to get out of their country quickly, finding information on social media is the way to go. Despite platforms not necessarily being the most reliable source, for many migrants, relying on online content is a reality that comes with risks in a world of misinformation.

Monterrosa’s platform is part of a new series of migration influencers taking over social media. Not only are migrants like Monterrosa creating platforms to provide information related to migration, but immigration lawyers, nonprofit organizations, and policymakers are also part of the social media movement that has began to develop in recent years. Many individuals and organizations, like Monterrosa, use their platforms to diffuse misinformation and scams that migrants are vulnerable to. Some of these content creators have upwards of 300k followers, using their ability to reach various audiences and people to recognize proper steps about asylum cases, migrant routes, and misinformation.  Monterosso explains that content is often used to alert migrants of dangerous scams that rob them of their money or jeopardize their safety.  Specifically, Monterrosa elaborates on cases of mass scams circulating on TikTok that support hazardous routes to the United States for large fees.