November 10, 2024 • 58 mins
Trump has won. He has plans.
Dr. Maria Cristina Garcia joins me for a deep dive into the intricacies of immigration policy and its far-reaching effects on American society. We discuss the disinformation clouding public perception and policy debates. Staring down a second Trump presidency, we reflect on historical mass deportations and the dire economic and social consequences that could follow.
We discuss forced migration, driven by authoritarian regimes and climate change, with a focus on regions like Central America and small island states. These global challenges are not just far-off events—they have direct implications for American democracy and the political landscape. And we highlight the urgency for humane, effective immigration reforms, emphasizing the pivotal role of leadership in shaping public perception and policy. The evolving dynamics of Hispanic voter support for Trump is a particular point of interest, offering insights into shifting political alliances.
In the broader context of democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism, this episode emphasizes the necessity for international cooperation to tackle pressing global issues like migration and climate change. Wealthier nations need to set a precedent in policy evolution, addressing new challenges such as climate displacement and gender-based violence.
Related: After America
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dr. Garcia (00:00):
And I think we should take him at his word.
This has happened before.
In the 1930s and the 1950s,undocumented residents of the
United States were rounded upand deported.
Oftentimes, american citizenswere caught up in the dragnet
too, because there weren't manyattempts to check for
(00:20):
citizenship.
Families were affected, and sowhen he threatens to have
another roundup, I think weshould take him at his word.
I think that this would happenNow.
This will have direconsequences for the economy,
because it will.
When you remove millions ofpeople who are responsible for
the planting and harvesting ofcrops, for providing services
(00:43):
and employment and constructionand other industries, when you
round them up and suddenlydeport them, that will have
consequences for the economy.
It will raise prices on goodsand services, certainly on the
food that we eat.
Shawn (01:04):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
So here we are the election'sover and Donald Trump is now
president-elect and preparing areturn to the White House in
January.
Trump's first presidency andhis stated policy goals give us
a sense of what might be comingAn end to the Affordable Care
(01:25):
Act, a hollowing out of thefederal civil service, more
crackdowns on abortion access,potentially military
intervention in some of ourbiggest cities and, related to
today's topic, mass roundups anddeportations of immigrants.
Historically, the United Stateshas been a sanctuary for those
fleeing oppression, conflict anddisaster.
(01:45):
But the narrative aroundimmigration, particularly in our
politics, has grown darker,clouded by disinformation and
political opportunism.
Trump's campaign rhetoric,echoing his previous tenure, was
filled with alarmist claimsabout invasions at the southern
border.
Alarmist claims about invasionsat the southern border.
(02:06):
That messaging played intolong-standing fears, weaponizing
misinformation to paintimmigrants as threats rather
than contributors to Americansociety.
This disinformation strategynot only distorts public
perception, but also undercutsefforts to pass reasonable and
humane immigration policies.
Trump himself in fact tanked abipartisan effort to crack down
(02:27):
on illegal immigration earlierthis year, in a cynical attempt
to keep the controversy and thecrisis alive.
But the stakes are higher thanjust the politics of this
election.
The global landscape isshifting under dual pressures of
authoritarian regimes andclimate change.
Countries like Venezuela andMyanmar drive their citizens to
(02:49):
flee persecution and violence,and climate-induced disasters
intensifying droughts, floodsand food shortages force
millions more to seek refugeacross borders.
These mass migrations aretesting the resilience of
democracies worldwide.
These mass migrations aretesting the resilience of
democracies worldwide, includingthe United States, and with an
authoritarian climate changedenier about to take the
(03:11):
presidency, this suggests darkdays ahead.
Today's guest is Dr MariaCristina Garcia, a professor in
the Department of History atCornell University, leading
scholar on immigration andrefugee policy and author of
numerous books related to thispolicy, including State of
Disaster the Failure of USMigration Policy in an Age of
(03:32):
Climate Change.
We discuss the state ofAmerican immigration and refugee
policy, how disinformation hasclouded the immigration debate,
the impacts of forced migrationon democracies and what a
post-2024 America could looklike in addressing these
challenges.
Also, if you're interested inwhat the United States and the
world might experience under asecond Trump presidency, you
(03:56):
might want to check out thelimited podcast series we
produced and released over thesummer After America.
In that series, we took a lookat how the GOP radicalized, how
we got here the ways in whichTrump influenced American
politics and how hisauthoritarian tendencies could
dramatically undermine democracyin the United States as well as
(04:17):
global stability.
I'll drop a link in the shownotes.
All right, if you liked thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
(04:38):
.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Garcia.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Garcia (04:50):
I'm good.
I hope you're well.
Shawn (04:52):
I am well.
We are recording this one daybefore the election, so our
conversation is going to bepretty apropos to the moment,
and that conversation is aboutimmigration, forced migration,
what drives it, the impact ithas on policy, particularly here
in the United States.
Immigration has played anintense role in our American
politics for a while now.
Rhetoric around immigration,demonization and disinformation
(05:14):
about who comes and why theycome, has contributed to a lot
of the polarization and divisionthat we're experiencing in the
states, and a little of thatrhetoric focuses on what drives
immigration and how.
Our inability, or maybe ourunwillingness, to discuss this
in any meaningful way means thatwe probably won't be
effectively addressing increasedimmigration into the country
(05:35):
with any good policy in the nearfuture.
Like I said, we're recordingthis just the day before the
election, so it's hard to saywhat shape immigration policy
could take in the very nearfuture, but it's probably safe
to say that, regardless, under aTrump or Harris administration,
it's going to be a hot issue.
So I'm glad to have you here totalk to me about this.
It's nice to be here, Thank youabout it as voluntary, even
(06:02):
when undertaken under duress.
But there are drivers to thisthat maybe, ancillarily, people
understand but don't really diginto or think too much about.
So can you explain what forcedmigration is and what it looks
like today, maybe some examplesof where it's happening and then
some of the things thatinfluence it or make it manifest
?
Dr. Garcia (06:19):
Forced migration is any movement of people that is
involuntary, and it's existedthroughout history.
It's been prompted by conquestand colonization, by war and
revolution, religiouspersecution and sectarian
violence, but also environmentaldisruption and climate change.
You know, I think we tend tosee forced migration from areas
(06:43):
that experience authoritarianregimes.
So authoritarian regimes haveplayed a role in driving
migration, because these regimesare oppressive.
They silence speech, they barfree association, they persecute
dissidents, they punish theiropponents or anyone who is
transgressive in any way.
It's all about control, and, inthe worst case scenario, people
(07:06):
are made to disappear inauthoritarian regimes, and so,
under these circumstances, youcan understand that many people
choose to move elsewhere.
They migrate to avoid fallingvictim to the regime, to avoid a
generalized climate of violenceor simply to avoid getting
caught up in the crossfire ofwarring factions, because
authoritarian regimes alwaysproduce a backlash.
(07:29):
Now we're seeing more and moreclimate-driven migration.
Historically, climate changehas always forced migration.
Sudden impact weather eventslike hurricanes, earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions havedisplaced people from their
homes and their livelihoods formillennia, but so, too, have
longer-term conditions likedrought, desertification, the
(07:51):
salination of freshwater sources.
You know it's part of the humanstory.
The difference is that todaythere are 8 billion people on
the planet, so climate change isaccelerating much more rapidly,
and the changes that onceoccurred over millennia are now
occurring over decades, and sowe can expect to see more
climate-driven forced migrationin the decades to come.
(08:13):
And as natural resourcesdiminish, the potential for
conflict also increases, alsocontributing to migration, which
is why the Pentagon has calledclimate change a threat
multiplier to migration which iswhy the Pentagon has called
climate change a threatmultiplier.
Shawn (08:30):
So one of the things that's particularly interesting
to me is the patterns that comeout of forced migration specific
to you know, if we think aboutthings like authoritarianism and
climate change, as youmentioned, I guess I'm wondering
, before we dig into the impactsof this, have you been able to
discern any particular patternsas it relates to where people
are coming from, where they'regoing and have some idea of what
that's going to look like orthe shape that's going to take
(08:52):
in the coming decades?
Dr. Garcia (08:54):
Well, every nation on the planet is experiencing
climate change.
You know there's no way tocounter that, but right now
there are certain areas ofcertainly in our hemisphere that
are on the front lines ofclimate change and the small
island states, for example, arean obvious area that is impacted
(09:15):
by climate change because oferoding coastlines.
You know, in the case of someislands in the Caribbean, for
example, that have experiencedvolcanic eruptions and other
kind of driver of migration,livelihoods have disappeared,
people have been forced to moveto other islands or to other
countries in the hemisphere.
(09:35):
So the small island states inthe Caribbean, but also in the
Pacific and Indian Oceans, theyare on the front lines of
climate change.
Pacific and Indian Oceans theyare on the front lines of
climate change.
But, here in our hemisphere,central America is.
You know, some people considerit the epicenter of climate
change, because Central America,this kind of very thin isthmus,
(09:56):
is affected by hurricanes onboth coasts, you know, on the
Caribbean Sea and on the PacificOcean.
They are also prone to drought,they experience volcanic
eruptions and earthquakes.
So lives and livelihoods areaffected on a regular basis,
making it really hard to recoverfrom from these climate impacts
(10:19):
.
And then you add to this thatthese are countries that are
still recovering from war, fromthe wars of the 1980s.
They are countries thatexperience political and
criminal violence.
You know it just, it'saltogether, it's a recipe for
out-migration.
Shawn (10:34):
We're seeing this in Europe, as we are in the United
States, which is increasedmigration, increased immigration
.
In the past decade and a half,it's increased exponentially,
and one of the implications fordemocracies in these countries
is absent good policy.
What this has created orgenerated is bad blood and
(10:57):
demonization of immigrants insuch a way that it's actually
producing authoritariantendencies within the populace.
That's then manifesting at theelite level, and you know, I
think we're seeing that in theUnited States as well.
So, to me, absent good policythat seems to be one of the
implications for democraticnations is that bad policy
related to immigration, coupledwith negative and demonizing
(11:20):
rhetoric, actually erodesdemocracy, and so I'm wondering
what other implications you see?
How does that affectdemocracies of democratic
nations?
Dr. Garcia (11:30):
Well, yes, you're absolutely right.
I think the arrival of largenumbers of migrants in a short
period of time can cause allkinds of pressures on a host
society.
It can have a destabilizingeffect because migrants put
pressure on public services Inthe short term.
Migrants require assistance.
They require healthcare,housing, jobs, education, and
(11:54):
this can generate resentmentfrom the host population and, if
not addressed, that resentmentcan create a populist backlash
that can topple a local state ornational government.
Immigrants are often perceivedto be threats to one's
livelihood, to the economy, to anation's cultural identity, to
(12:15):
national security, and that canlead to political polarization,
anti-immigrant sentiment,discrimination, segregation,
even anti-immigrant violence.
But that doesn't have to be theend game.
If migration is managed well,immigrants can contribute to the
economic revitalization of anarea where everyone can win.
(12:36):
Many refugees in the UnitedStates, for example, have high
rates of entrepreneurship andworkforce participation that
have helped revitalize citiesthat were once in economic and
population decline.
We see this most specificallyin my home state of New York,
where places like Rochester andUtica and Syracuse have
(12:57):
experienced a revitalization inpart because of the influx of
refugees and other immigrantgroups that have had high
workforce participation andentrepreneurship.
Shawn (13:06):
So there's a history and research around this history of
how authoritarian regimesactually exploit migration as a
political tool.
You know, if I think aboutVenezuela, it doesn't make sense
to me that authoritarians wouldwant to create an environment
in which people are forced toleave because, at the end of the
day, they're hollowing out acountry that they ostensibly
(13:28):
intend to lead.
So what is the political end toa means such as forced
migration?
Dr. Garcia (13:34):
Authoritarian regimes exploit migration in
multiple ways, you know.
The most obvious way is toexport dissent.
When social pressure buildswithin a society, authoritarian
regimes often encourage thedisaffected and the dissident to
leave, and in so doing theyundercut international arguments
that they are repressivebecause, you know, after all,
(13:55):
they're allowing people tomigrate.
But ultimately it's all aboutcontrol.
Migration in this context isabout maintaining their
authority.
They want to export thetroublemakers.
For authoritarian regimes,migration can also be a form of
population control.
They can force undesirablepopulations to leave, either by
making life really reallydifficult for them or by forcing
(14:18):
them to leave at gunpoint.
If they don't like anethno-racial minority or
religious group, for example,they can force those populations
to leave.
But authoritarians also regimesalso, you know are using
migration strategically in otherstrategic ways.
So they realize that migrationcan be used to generate wealth,
because they know that migrantssend remittances and consumer
(14:42):
goods back home to theirfamilies and communities in the
billions of dollars each year,and this too helps to keep the
population pacified andultimately helps to keep
authoritarian regimes in power.
Other ways that authoritarianregimes might also use migration
is as a weapon.
They can weaponize migration tocreate problems for a
(15:03):
neighboring country in order todestabilize it.
But the most common way thatauthoritarian regimes use
migration is as a scapegoat.
It takes the heat off of them.
You know, immigrants are easytargets, especially if they are
perceived to be competing forjobs or perceived to be
receiving more benefits than thegeneral population has access
(15:24):
to, and so governmentsoftentimes encourage these
resentments and deliberately pinpopulations against each other.
Because it takes the heat offof them and, once again, it
helps to maintain theirauthority.
Shawn (15:37):
So you touched on this a little bit, but I guess this
seems relatively obvious, andmaybe it is.
What is the impact thatauthoritarian regimes, or what
do we know about the impact ofmigration on neighboring regimes
or regions?
What is the impact that thishas on stability in regions and
neighboring countries?
Dr. Garcia (15:55):
You know it can have a destabilizing effect.
As you have pointed out, if anauthoritarian regime is actively
encouraging migration to exportdissent or to weaponize it in
some way to destabilize an enemy, that migration has a
destabilizing effect on thecountries that border these
(16:18):
authoritarian regimes andultimately that leads to more
tension, escalates tension inthe region that can, in the
worst case scenario, lead toconflict, to war, to violence.
That then produces even moremigration, out-migration, and
then, you know, the migrationgoes further out.
(16:39):
So we saw this, for example,during the wars in Central
America, where at first, whenpeople were displaced from their
homes because of thegeneralized climate of violence
or because they were caught inthe crossfire, they moved
internally within their owncountries, and then they started
moving to other countrieswithin Central America.
So Nicaraguans settled in CostaRica in very large numbers, for
(17:01):
example, but with every passingyear the radius expanded.
People moved into Mexico, theymoved further north into the
United States and towards Canada.
So the number of countries thatwere directly affected by the
wars in Central America and bythe migration produced by these
wars increased with everypassing year.
Shawn (17:24):
Specific to immigration and migration in Central and, I
guess, northern South America.
Are there any countries thatare managing that immigration or
the influx of immigrants welland have good immigration policy
?
Or are you concerned kind ofacross the board?
Dr. Garcia (17:41):
No, I think.
Since the wars in CentralAmerica, there's been an effort
by the nations of the region tocome together periodically to
discuss issues of mutual concern, and migration is one of those
issues of mutual concern.
So one of the first attempts toaddress migration, for example,
was the Cartagena Declaration,where the nations first of all
(18:03):
defined for what a refugee wasand you know it was a
non-binding declaration, but itwas at least a recognition that
there were many reasons whypeople migrate and that the
nations of the region had aparticular obligation to provide
either temporary or permanentrefuge to people who were
displaced.
And so, since then, the nationsof the region have met
(18:26):
periodically to discuss issuesof mutual concern.
The most recent attempt wasduring the Biden administration,
when the Biden administrationtried to address the root causes
of migration from the Americas,and this led to the Los Angeles
Declaration of 2022, where 22nations agreed to work together
(18:48):
to create more job opportunitiesthat would help keep people
home.
They secured commitments fromcorporations to invest more
money in infrastructure or tocreate more jobs in the region,
for example.
They were especially concernedabout Central America.
There has been an attempt toalso discuss ways to develop
(19:09):
climate resiliency so thatpeople can exercise that basic
human right to stay home,because we realize that moving
forward, that climate change isa reality.
We're not meeting the targetsof the Paris Agreement and even
if we did, climate change is afast moving train and it will
take decades before we see thefull effects of addressing, of
(19:34):
meeting those climatecommitments.
And so in the meantime we needto help populations adapt to the
realities of climate change intheir agricultural production,
in their housing, in theirinfrastructure, so they can
exercise that basic human rightto stay home and that becomes a
way of addressing migration.
But then there will always bepopulations who cannot adapt to
(19:57):
the realities of climate changeof the region need to work
together to manage migration, tocreate resettlement programs
that share the burden equitably,because there will be
populations that, through nofault of their own, will have to
migrate.
Shawn (20:14):
So, before we get into this specific moment or
political moment in the UnitedStates, I guess I would like a
little bit of help understandinghistory as it relates to the US
policies related to forcedmigrants.
So could you help me understandif the United States has done a
good job historically ofaddressing the needs of forced
migrants and immigration intothe country and if so, what does
(20:35):
it look like?
And if not, why not?
Dr. Garcia (20:38):
The short answer is yes and no.
Yes, the United States hasaccommodated millions of people
from around the globe over thecourse of its history, but also,
you know, running parallel tothat very that history of
generosity is also a history ofhostility.
And this hostility towardsimmigrant has also been part of
(21:00):
the US story.
So we celebrate our immigrantheritage through parades and
folklife festivals and we callourselves a nation of immigrants
, which is a very problematicframing because of course it
obscures the experience ofpeople who were not immigrants,
people who became Americanthrough conquest or through
enslavement.
But anyway, we do celebratethat immigrant heritage and we
(21:23):
call ourselves a nation ofimmigrants.
But alongside that sentimentare calls for greater and
greater restrictions onimmigration, and that's been
true throughout our history.
All you have to do is readBenjamin Franklin's writings on
the Germans of Pennsylvania, forexample, or take a look at some
of the anti-Irish politicalcartoons created by Thomas Nast
(21:45):
to see that hostility or thatfear and suspicion of immigrants
has also been part of theAmerican story.
When the federal governmentassumed responsibility for
immigration control in the late19th century, for immigration
control in the late 19th century, one of the first groups they
targeted for exclusion were theChinese, and with every passing
decade Congress barred more andmore people they considered
(22:08):
undesirable, or whoever theyconsidered undesirable at a
particular moment.
So at some points it was theimpoverished that they wanted to
bar the illiterate, asians,southern and Eastern Europeans,
mormons, homosexuals and indeedsome of the most draconian
immigration laws were passedbetween 1917 and 1924.
(22:31):
So today's immigration laws andpolicies are part of this
longer legal tradition.
Now, having said that, sincethe 1980s, we've seen a greater
emphasis on controllingunauthorized migration.
More and more money is beingspent on technologies and on
manpower to track, detain andexpel unauthorized immigrants.
(22:56):
The Department of HomelandSecurity, where most of our
immigration services are located, is now the largest federal
office in American history, andwe're also seeing the rise of
immigration detention centersthat are privatized and run by a
multi-billion dollarcorporation.
So that is new.
That's a new development in ourhistory.
(23:19):
What makes this particularmoment different and dangerous,
though, is the speed throughwhich rumor and disinformation
and vitriol spread on socialmedia, and how that you know.
Because of the speed of thatmiscommunication, it increases
the likelihood of violence.
So the most obvious example isyou know, the lies that
(23:41):
circulated this past fall aboutthe Haitians of Springfield,
ohio, and the consequences thatthat had not only for Haitians,
but also for people who lived inthe broader community.
What has become clear, to me atleast, is that, at this present
moment, most Americans don'tknow how the immigration system
works.
You know, all you have to do islook at some of the posts on
(24:06):
social media about immigration,and it's clear that students,
that Americans, never study thisin grade school or in high
school.
It's not part of their civichistory courses, if they take
civic history at all, you know,it's just they don't know how
the immigration system works,and so the most obvious example,
for example, is the asylumsystem.
(24:27):
So, yes, it's true that todaywe have more asylum seekers
arriving at ports of entry thanever before, and this has been
true actually, since the 1980s.
Since the 1980s, we've seen agrowing number of asylum seekers
, but most of these asylumseekers will never have a chance
to make a case for themselvesin an asylum court because they
(24:50):
won't pass the initial crediblefear interview and they will be
removed through a process knownas expedited removal.
And they will be removed througha process known as expedited
removal.
Even those who do pass thisinitial scrutiny, the credible
fear test, and even those whoare allowed to enter to receive
an asylum hearing within two tothree years, even they will face
(25:11):
enormous obstacles.
Today, roughly 20% of asylumseekers are successful.
So this perception on socialmedia that's circulating that
everybody who is being allowedinto the country will get to
stay here permanently is justnot true.
It's just that we have aninternational and a domestic
obligation to grant people whohave passed that credible fear
(25:33):
test the right to make a casefor themselves in an asylum
court.
It doesn't mean that they willreceive asylum as I said, about
20% of asylum seekers aresuccessful but they do have a
right to make a case forthemselves if they pass that
initial credible fear interview.
But you know, as I said, mostpeople it's become clear just
(25:54):
from reading social media thatmost Americans really don't have
a sense of how the asylumsystem works or the immigration
system as a whole.
Shawn (26:05):
One of the things that is particularly interesting maybe
mind boggling to me in the past,I guess decade or so is just
how salient the issue ofimmigration has become to people
that I'm not quite sure areparticularly impacted one way or
the other by it.
Because I don't live on a landborder, and particularly the
southern land border, I don'thave a sense of how tangibly
(26:30):
real this problem or issue is,and so, to get at the heart of
it is the I don't like puttingit in these terms, but is the
problem associated withimmigration in our political
rhetoric?
Is that a red herring?
Is that a political creation,or is it truly a problem that
I'm just not seeing?
Dr. Garcia (26:48):
Well, it's both and actually the situation that you
described is not altogether new.
I mean, when you look at thearc of immigration history,
oftentimes the most heatedopposition to immigration within
the United States came fromareas that didn't really
experience much immigration, andthat's where you see, as you
say, the impact of leadership orthe absence of leadership in
(27:12):
helping to explain a particularproblem.
But are Americans wrong to beconcerned?
No, not necessarily.
I mean there are growingnumbers of people coming to the
border to seek entry.
Some are trying to enterwithout authorization.
This has been true, you know,for a very long period of time
(27:35):
and, yes, there are a growingnumber of asylum seekers, but
there are also checks in placethat prevent a lot of people
from entering.
You know, it's easy to thinkthat our borders are porous when
you see these images in thenewspapers of migrant caravans
or people kind of sneakingthrough vulnerable areas of
(27:56):
fencing entering the UnitedStates.
But there are also so manychecks in place that prevent
that from happening as well.
As I said earlier, I mean ourimmigration services within the
Department of Homeland Securityare now among the most funded
and there are bills currently inCongress that are on hold that
(28:17):
would expand the immigrationbureaucracy even further and
increase the technology and themanpower even more.
So there are a number of legaland technological and manpower
checks in place to prevent ourborders from being too porous.
Now, you know, a lot of it isdisinformation.
(28:39):
I think you're right.
I think that many politicianshave used migration as part of
their culture wars, you knowthis is one of the ways that
they've been able to either getthemselves elected or to stay in
office is by stoking, you know,anger and fear and resentment,
(29:00):
and, you know, kind of focusingon the culture wars.
You know there's a lot oflanguage about how we are under
siege, that the white populationis in decline, that you know
that there are all these kind ofdiscourses that are circulating
, which are not new, by the way.
I mean, again, you see them allthroughout American history,
but they have particularsalience at particular moments
(29:22):
in time, and I think somepoliticians have been quite
masterful at exploiting themright.
And then, when you add to thatsocial media and the lack of
checks on social media and theease with which disinformation
travels Springfield, for example, as just one of many examples
it's a recipe for disaster andpeople get quite worked up about
(29:44):
it, but at the same time, I'mhopeful.
I'm hopeful, yes,disinformation can undermine
humanitarian policies.
So I study refugees and asylumseekers in particular, and this
is an aspect of immigrationpolicy that is very important to
me, especially as someone whois a refugee herself.
(30:05):
You know my family benefitedfrom American generosity in the
1960s, when we were allowed toimmigrate from Cuba, and so I
would like to see thathumanitarian tradition continue
in the United States and I'mhopeful that it will.
And you know I am worried thatdisinformation can undermine
these humanitarian policies.
(30:27):
But sometimes what you need isjust leadership and the will to
open the door policy.
In this country, for example,you see how the executive branch
or members of Congress oftencreated tracks for admission
because they felt it was theright thing to do, even though
the public opinion polls wereshowing them that Americans were
(30:47):
ambivalent or even outrightopposed to a group of people.
We saw this during the Cold Warwith American generosity
towards Hungarians and Cubansand Southeast Asians who were
admitted to the United States invery large numbers.
And in recent years the Bidenadministration has granted entry
to Ukrainians and to the Afghanallies, again because of a
(31:10):
sense of obligation.
But they also exercised thepolitical will to do so, despite
what the public opinion pollswere telling them.
And at other times, you know,when you study the arc of US
immigration history, you alsosee how advocacy has helped to
pry open the door to the UnitedStates.
You know advocacy fromnon-governmental organizations
(31:31):
and from faith-based communitieswho put pressure on an
administration that was hostileto immigration.
So the classic case from therecent past is again the Central
Americans of the 1980s.
We saw how American oppositionto the American presence in
Central America and Americansupport for Salvadorans and
(31:53):
other Central Americans, howthis eventually forced Congress
to create tracks for admissionfor these populations.
So I'm hopeful that Americanswill continue to grant admission
to vulnerable populations.
But you know, having said that,it's also really important to
recognize that, despite Americangenerosity over the generations
(32:15):
American generosity over thegenerations and yes, we have
admitted so many immigrants,refugees and asylum seekers over
the course of the generationsbut it's also important to
recognize that the top 10resettlement nations combined,
including the United States,today accommodate less than 1%
of the world's refugees.
(32:36):
It's usually the nations thatborder areas of crisis that
accommodate the greatest numberof refugees.
So, despite our humanitariantradition, when it comes to
refugees and asylum seekers, theneed is just so large and the
number of refugees who have beenaccommodated are just a drop in
the bucket.
Shawn (32:56):
The two political parties in the United States have
become so divergent onimmigration policy in the last
handful of years in a way thatyou know just didn't exist prior
.
So, like I think in 2000 withBush versus Gore, you know the
two candidates had somedifferences on their immigration
policy, but it wasn't a youknow, a yawning chasm, and same
(33:17):
in 2008, although we werebeginning to see the stirrings
of that, But't a you know, ayawning chasm, and same in 2008,
although we were beginning tosee the stirrings of that.
But ever since, you know, Isuppose about 2016, we can't
ignore the elephant in the room.
Trump's rhetoric related toimmigration and his as much as
you could package policy onimmigration has really widened
the gap between Democratic andRepublican policy.
(33:37):
And that's not to say thatDemocrats have great policy on
immigration and Republicansdon't.
But one of the things that youoften hear is, at the end of the
day, a lot of this is justposturing, and especially in an
election year.
In 2004, Bush did this withsame-sex marriage.
It was a big flare up duringthe election year and then it
just kind of calmed down.
But immigration I've heard thisas well as a mitigating kind of
(33:59):
consideration, which is this isan election year, so there's
just a lot of rhetoric aroundimmigration, but if they, after
the election, this eventually,you know, just kind of calmed
down, it won't be as bad asTrump makes it seem like it will
under him.
But we do have two candidates,Trump and Harris, that are
giving us very different visionsfor what immigration and
migration policy could look likein the future.
(34:20):
Do you see this as similar toprevious election kind of
rhetoric around this issue, ordo you see this as something
different?
Dr. Garcia (34:28):
No, it's different.
It's different.
First, I would want tochallenge the perception that
the Democrats are open border,because they're not.
I mean, when you look at forexample, removal and deportation
rates.
Under Democratic administrationsthey are as high, or even
higher, than you know, duringRepublican administrations, the
(34:50):
Biden administration, forexample.
Well, initially the courtsprevented him from lifting the
migrant protection protocols inTitle 42.
But eventually, when those werephased out, other checks were
put in place, the CBP1 app, forexample, which has made it
really, really hard for asylumseekers to even access the
(35:13):
asylum system in the UnitedStates.
So he has implemented certainchecks to try to discourage
people from coming to the UnitedStates.
So he has implemented certainchecks to try to discourage
people from coming to the UnitedStates.
So I want to challenge theperception that the Democrats
have an open border policy,because that has never been true
.
Now, having said that, theRepublican policy under Trump is
(35:38):
just so, so different, and wesaw what he could do.
During his first administration, Refugee admissions were at an
all-time low.
For example, you know, when theRefugee Act was passed in 1980,
it set a minimum quota of50,000 per year.
In 1980, it set a minimum quotaof 50,000 per year, and most
(36:03):
administrations have admittedbetween 100,000 and 125,000
refugees per year.
But towards the tail end of hisadministration the quota had
been set at 15,000, and eventhen the quota wasn't met.
So it was the lowest admissionrates for refugees ever since
the passage of the 1980 RefugeeAct.
But then there were otherimmigration policies that were
(36:25):
put into place that were soworrisome, you know, the
so-called Muslim ban, which waschallenged in the courts and was
ultimately implemented oncethey added other countries into
the ban, like Venezuela.
The attempts to eradicatetemporary protected status, TPS,
which again was held up in thecourts.
(36:48):
So there were checks in placeduring the first administration
that prevented the mostdraconian policies from being
fully implemented.
But I'm not so sure thosechecks will be in place should
he be elected for a second time.
And so he has promised, you know, a roundup, detention and
(37:09):
deportation of the entireunauthorized population in the
United States, and I think weshould take him at his word.
This has happened before.
You know, in the 1930s and the1950s, undocumented residents of
the United States were roundedup and deported.
Oftentimes American citizenswere caught up in the dragnet
(37:31):
too, because there weren't very,you know, many, many attempts
to check for citizenship.
Families were affected, and sowhen he threatens to have
another roundup, I think weshould take him at his word.
I think that this would happenNow.
This will have direconsequences for the economy
because it will.
When you remove millions ofpeople who are responsible for
(37:54):
the planting and harvesting ofcrops, for providing services
and employment and constructionand other industries, when you
round them up and suddenlydeport them, that will have
consequences for the economy.
It will raise prices on goodsand services, certainly on the
food that we eat, but it willhave an impact on families.
(38:18):
You know the Republicans havealways prided themselves on
through the payment of salestaxes and local and property and
(38:40):
federal taxes and have providedso much to our country through
their labor.
That will affect so manyfamilies because there are so
many Americans who live in mixedstatus families and so it will
be consequential for many, manypeople.
I think we will all be affectedin some way because of his
(39:00):
policies.
Shawn (39:02):
How does deportation work ?
We talk about the impact itmight have on the economy.
Talk about the impact it wouldhave on people.
Here, Do we know typically whathappens to people when they're
deported and sent back?
Dr. Garcia (39:14):
Not really.
I mean, once people are removedfrom the United States, we
don't know what happens to them,and that's particularly
worrisome when young people areremoved from the United States,
for example.
We don't keep track of whathappens to them, how people try
to rebuild their lives when theyare removed.
Some may attempt to reenter theUnited States and that will
(39:43):
have legal consequences for themif they attempt to reenter
after they have been formallydeported.
But there are many ways thatpeople are removed from the
United States that don'tnecessarily entail deportation
and there's a wonderful bookwritten by my colleague, adam
Goodman, called the DeportationMachine, where he looks at the
history of forced removal andthe ways that people were either
(40:07):
convinced to leave the UnitedStates through a campaign of
violence or hostility, or wereforcibly removed, where they
agreed to remove themselves,either legally, you know, or
just left the United States oftheir own volition.
But then you have to wonder howfree that choice was.
(40:29):
If there was a campaign ofintimidation and violence
against you that convinced youthat it was time to pack up and
go, so you?
So I think we can expect to seesome of that.
If Trump is elected tomorrow, Ithink we can expect to see the
state engage in an activecampaign of rounding up and
(40:51):
removing people from the UnitedStates.
But I think also there will bea climate of fear and
intimidation and violence thatwill convince many people to say
, hey, you know, it's not worthit.
I'm going to return to mycountry of origin.
I think that that's a decisionthat might be easier.
(41:22):
Most people will try to stayuntil until the state comes
knocking on their door.
Shawn (41:28):
All signs, all polling signs, seem to suggest that, you
know, trump is doing betterwith the Hispanic vote than he
did in 2016 and 2020.
And Harris is doing worse thanDemocrats have in the past.
After the election we'll seehow that is all borne out, but
given Trump's policies specificto Latin America, immigration
(41:48):
from Latin America and hisprofessed policies, what do you
think is happening here?
I tend to think there might bea gendered component to this,
but I'm not sure.
Dr. Garcia (41:58):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think many of us are tryingto understand it.
You know, some decades agothose Latinos who voted
Republican tended to come fromleftist authoritarian regimes
who were very angry towardscommunism and they felt that the
(42:21):
Republican Party was strongeragainst communism, towards
checking communism.
And so during the 1980s, forexample, cubans and Nicaraguans
and others who had fledleft-wing regimes were quite
impressed by Reagan and histough stance towards communism.
(42:42):
But since then, in more recentdecades, we've seen some really
interesting realignments andreasons for voting Republican.
You know, for many Latinos whoare Catholic or evangelical
Christian, for them abortion isa very important issue.
(43:02):
In many cases it's a one issueidentification.
This is the one issue that theycare the most about, and so
they are.
They will vote Republicanbecause they feel that the
Republican Party isanti-abortion, is more
pro-family, is more traditionalfamily values, and so they will.
They feel more comfortable inthe Republican camp.
(43:26):
For others, you know, believeit or not, you know this this
kind of legal posturing thatthat they see in Trump, they
don't find it alienatingnecessarily, especially if
they're first generationimmigrants.
They might be coming fromcountries where they're familiar
with that style of politics,that bravado right.
(43:47):
And they don't find it asalienating as, say, a third or
fourth generation Latino who ismore thoroughly assimilated into
life in the United States.
So there are many, manydifferent reasons why Latinos
might vote Republican, whyLatinos might vote Republican.
(44:08):
And you're right, we're seeing,you know, anywhere from 30 to
40 percent of Latinos todayidentify as Republican and are
voting Republican, although yousee a higher percentage rate
among some populations more thanothers.
Right.
But you know, I think it'simportant to underscore that the
Latino population is quitediverse, and that's 65 million
people from you know, over 20different nations with very
(44:29):
different experiences andmotivations for having come to
the United States.
Some, have you know, are fifth,sixth, seventh generation
American.
Others are more recent arrivals.
So, you know, when you havesuch a large and diverse
population, it's going to beimpossible to find one political
issue or one political onepolitician who is going to
(44:51):
appeal to such a large anddiverse population.
Shawn (44:55):
We're experiencing democratic backsliding in what
would what would have beencharacterized as very stable
democracies in past.
You know we're seeing that inEuropean countries, to some
extent in the United States aswell, and we're seeing a rise of
authoritarianism in otherplaces.
And this is fluid.
Democracies wax and wane, samewith authoritarian regimes.
(45:15):
But what maybe feels a littledifferent is that it's happening
to great powers in a way thatfeels destabilizing.
We're seeing some significantdemocratic backsliding in the
United States.
We're seeing Russia being muchmore aggressive on the world
stage, China's more assertive.
One thing that this does isthat portends the idea that
there probably will be moremigration related to the rise of
(45:36):
authoritarianism around theworld.
But the other is, you know, tomaintain stability in the world,
but to specific regions, youreally need countries to
cooperate around issues likeimmigration and migration,
Otherwise it can unspool rightand it can become very
destabilizing globally.
Given the context of, you know,these rising powers,
(45:59):
authoritarian powers and kind ofa waning of democracy globally,
it feels a little, I don't wantto say hopeless, but it feels
existential to some degree.
Dr. Garcia (46:10):
I understand why you feel that way.
I think authoritariangovernments can undermine
international cooperation and Ithink, now more than ever, you
know we need to cooperate.
The lack of cooperation isparticularly worrisome in an age
of accelerated climate change.
I think, now more than ever,nations need to work together to
(46:32):
help populations most at riskadapt to the realities of
climate change.
We need to work together tomanage migration for those who
can adapt.
We need to work together toaddress the reasons why climate
change is accelerating in thefirst place.
So, yes, at this particularmoment, when scientists are
telling us that we are fastapproaching the point of no
(46:53):
return, you know we need to haveinternational cooperation.
But one of the arguments that Ihear over and over again is from
Americans is well, why shouldwe abide by the Paris agreement?
Why should we contort ourselvesto try to reach these goals If
China is not cooperating, orRussia or whatever?
(47:14):
Fill in the blank?
But if we're going to waituntil we have a hundred percent
cooperation, it's just not goingto happen, I think.
I think those countries,democracies, the wealthier
nations, have a particularobligation to take the lead on
this, and especially when youconsider that the countries that
(47:35):
are currently on the frontlines of climate change are
countries that are formercolonies, whose wealth was
extracted for the benefit ofwealthier nations.
Today, they are some of thepoorest and most indebted
nations on the planet, and so Ithink the wealthier nations,
democratic nations, have aparticular obligation to these
countries, these lesserdeveloped countries, many of
(47:57):
which have authoritariangovernments, because they're on
the front lines and, in theinterest of justice, I think we
have an obligation to help, toassist and, through leadership,
we need to work together toaddress climate change, but
climate change is one of many,many issues that we need to
(48:18):
secure international cooperationon, but certainly for me, I
think it's one of the mostimportant ones.
For me, I think it's one of themost important ones, and I hope
my concern about the upcomingelection here in the United
States is that we will forgetabout climate change should
Trump be elected.
For example, I mean, oneadministration considers, or one
political candidate, onecampaign considers, climate
(48:39):
change to be a hoax.
Another one acknowledges thatit's real and that we need to
work with other nations toaddress its impact.
So I think this election couldnot be more consequential for
the United States, but also forthe world.
Shawn (48:55):
This touches on something that I've been thinking about
related to policy generally, Isuppose, but you know, in the
context of our conversationimmigration policy and migrant
policy it's not that policiescan remain static.
It has to evolve to meet theday, to meet the moment.
As you've talked about, climatechange is increasingly an issue
.
We're seeing authoritarianismsprouting in different regions
(49:17):
in the world in ways that youknow didn't exist just 10 years
ago.
That has an implication forimmigration and migrant policy.
It's not just that our policyis remaining the same or has
remained the same or wouldremain the same.
It's that it's regressing andwe need it to actually be
progressing right.
I guess I'm wondering what youthink good policy could or
(49:39):
should look like or how itshould be addressing some of
these issues.
Dr. Garcia (49:44):
Well, good policy constantly needs to adapt to the
realities of the world aroundus.
Let me give you refugee policyis just one example.
So our definition of refugee isvery precise and it's modeled
after the UN definition ofrefugee, which identifies a
refugee as a person with awell-founded fear of persecution
(50:05):
on account of race, religion,nationality, membership in a
particular social group orpolitical opinion.
So nowhere in that definitiondo you see any reference to
gender, sexuality, climatechange there are many ways that
populations become vulnerableand, unfortunately, the law
doesn't always keep track withvulnerability and the ways that
(50:29):
people become vulnerable, right?
So I think it becomesimperative for the United States
and other nations to, if theydon't want to change existing
law, at least to createcomplementary tracks for
admission.
So if you don't want to tweakthe refugee definition to
include climate change, forexample, then we need to
(50:49):
consider creating acomplementary track that
provides for both temporary andpermanent residents to people
who have been displaced by theenvironment or by accelerating
climate change.
Likewise, there have to beguidelines to provide
accommodation to people who areexperiencing violence on account
(51:09):
of gender and sexuality.
So we need to be adaptive.
I think our immigration system,our immigration law, has been
produced ad hoc in response toparticular concerns.
Ad hoc and response toparticular concerns.
So, for example, during WorldWar II and during the Cold War,
(51:30):
we adapted immigration policy.
We changed it to accommodatepopulations that were of concern
, people that we needed toaccommodate because of our
foreign policy interests orbecause of humanitarian concerns
.
It was deemed in the nationalinterest.
Likewise, in the post-Cold Warperiod, we also adapted
(51:50):
immigration policy also torespond to particular domestic
concerns about national securityand terrorism, and so we
adjusted our immigration policy.
And so we need to continue tobe adaptive.
We need to examine both how toserve our domestic interests in
terms of labor, but we also needto recognize that we have
(52:14):
particular humanitarianobligations as a world leader to
also accommodate vulnerablepopulations, and vulnerability
changes across the generations.
And we need to continue to kindof see where the need is and
create opportunities forvulnerable populations to seek
refuge in the United States.
Shawn (52:37):
Okay, final question.
You ready for it?
Sure, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately?
Dr. Garcia (52:48):
you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing
lately.
Well, I've been spending a lotof time in nature recently just
to keep my sanity, I think youknow, at the end of the day,
after a day in class, after youknow, trying to stay on top of
everything that's happening ininternational fairs and on the
domestic front, I need time torevitalize, to decompress, and
(53:11):
so I'm spending a lot of time innature.
Fortunately, ithaca, new York,is a beautiful place to do that.
There are wonderful hikingtrails and waterfalls and it's a
beautiful place.
So I'm very fortunate to livehere.
So that's what I've been doing,s.
What about?
Shawn (53:28):
you.
Funny enough, I also have beenfeeling very anxious about the
state of the world.
Some people, I think, wouldcall it hysteria.
I don't think so.
I think it's probably verypractical.
But what I've been doing isI've been doing a lot of reading
about past conflicts.
(53:48):
I think the reason is becausethey're behind us and I'm trying
to find sites like it's alittle bit of like a security
blanket in that you know, theworld has gone through some
pretty horrible things and theworld is going through some
pretty horrible things, but allthings come to an end and let's
just hope it's for better andnot for worse.
Dr. Garcia (54:04):
I guess horrible things, but all things come to
an end and let's just hope it'sfor better and not for worse.
I guess yes, and historicallyand in the current moment, there
are so many people of goodwilland they are the.
They are who.
They give me hope.
Shawn (54:17):
I've been really thinking about.
I don't know how the news, howthis works, because the news
really taps into, I would almostsay like negative or salacious
emotions in us and I've beenwondering what the world would
look like if the news ran withyou know, a puppy was adopted
today more often than you knowsomething horrible.
Dr. Garcia (54:37):
Well, you're not off the mark, sean, I think, on
social media.
I think some of those Facebookpages, for example on puppies
and kittens, are attractingquite a bit of attention these
days.
Shawn (54:52):
That is true, dr Garcia.
Thank you for stopping by andhaving the conversation and, if
you haven't, don't forget tovote.
Dr. Garcia (55:00):
Oh, I already voted.
Thank you, and thank you somuch for inviting me, s.
I appreciate it.
Shawn (55:11):
It's clear that we're standing on the edge of a new
chapter in American history, onethat could bring profound
changes to our immigrationpolicies, our democratic norms
and our role on the world stage.
The stakes have never beenhigher, especially for millions
of immigrants and refugees wholook to the United States as a
beacon of hope, only to find anation grappling with its own
(55:34):
democratic identity and moraldirection.
As Dr Garcia highlighted, we'renot just talking about policy
debates here.
We're talking about human lives, families and communities that
are already vulnerable and willlikely face even greater
hardships in the coming years.
Disinformation, fear-mongeringand political maneuvering have
(55:54):
clouded our understanding ofimmigration, painting it as a
crisis to be combated ratherthan what it is a humanitarian
challenge to be met withcompassion and thoughtful
solutions.
This isn't just a politicalissue.
It's a moral one.
It's about who we want to be asa country and how we respond to
(56:15):
the pressing realities of achanging world.
So why should you care?
Because the consequences of asecond Trump presidency won't be
confined to political circlesor policy debates.
They'll impact the very heartof our society, the strength of
our democracy, the stability ofour economy and the lives of
millions.
It is upon each of us.
Now it's up to all of us tosift through the noise,
(56:37):
challenge, the disinformationand demand policies that reflect
the true values of this country, values that once made the
United States a sanctuary forthe oppressed.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
And I think we should take him at his word.
This has happened before.
In the 1930s and the 1950s,undocumented residents of the
United States were rounded upand deported.
Oftentimes, american citizenswere caught up in the dragnet
too, because there weren't manyattempts to check for
(00:20):
citizenship.
Families were affected, and sowhen he threatens to have
another roundup, I think weshould take him at his word.
I think that this would happenNow.
This will have direconsequences for the economy,
because it will.
When you remove millions ofpeople who are responsible for
the planting and harvesting ofcrops, for providing services
(00:43):
and employment and constructionand other industries, when you
round them up and suddenlydeport them, that will have
consequences for the economy.
It will raise prices on goodsand services, certainly on the
food that we eat.
Shawn (01:04):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
So here we are the election'sover and Donald Trump is now
president-elect and preparing areturn to the White House in
January.
Trump's first presidency andhis stated policy goals give us
a sense of what might be comingAn end to the Affordable Care
(01:25):
Act, a hollowing out of thefederal civil service, more
crackdowns on abortion access,potentially military
intervention in some of ourbiggest cities and, related to
today's topic, mass roundups anddeportations of immigrants.
Historically, the United Stateshas been a sanctuary for those
fleeing oppression, conflict anddisaster.
(01:45):
But the narrative aroundimmigration, particularly in our
politics, has grown darker,clouded by disinformation and
political opportunism.
Trump's campaign rhetoric,echoing his previous tenure, was
filled with alarmist claimsabout invasions at the southern
border.
Alarmist claims about invasionsat the southern border.
(02:06):
That messaging played intolong-standing fears, weaponizing
misinformation to paintimmigrants as threats rather
than contributors to Americansociety.
This disinformation strategynot only distorts public
perception, but also undercutsefforts to pass reasonable and
humane immigration policies.
Trump himself in fact tanked abipartisan effort to crack down
(02:27):
on illegal immigration earlierthis year, in a cynical attempt
to keep the controversy and thecrisis alive.
But the stakes are higher thanjust the politics of this
election.
The global landscape isshifting under dual pressures of
authoritarian regimes andclimate change.
Countries like Venezuela andMyanmar drive their citizens to
(02:49):
flee persecution and violence,and climate-induced disasters
intensifying droughts, floodsand food shortages force
millions more to seek refugeacross borders.
These mass migrations aretesting the resilience of
democracies worldwide.
These mass migrations aretesting the resilience of
democracies worldwide, includingthe United States, and with an
authoritarian climate changedenier about to take the
(03:11):
presidency, this suggests darkdays ahead.
Today's guest is Dr MariaCristina Garcia, a professor in
the Department of History atCornell University, leading
scholar on immigration andrefugee policy and author of
numerous books related to thispolicy, including State of
Disaster the Failure of USMigration Policy in an Age of
(03:32):
Climate Change.
We discuss the state ofAmerican immigration and refugee
policy, how disinformation hasclouded the immigration debate,
the impacts of forced migrationon democracies and what a
post-2024 America could looklike in addressing these
challenges.
Also, if you're interested inwhat the United States and the
world might experience under asecond Trump presidency, you
(03:56):
might want to check out thelimited podcast series we
produced and released over thesummer After America.
In that series, we took a lookat how the GOP radicalized, how
we got here the ways in whichTrump influenced American
politics and how hisauthoritarian tendencies could
dramatically undermine democracyin the United States as well as
(04:17):
global stability.
I'll drop a link in the shownotes.
All right, if you liked thisepisode or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom
(04:38):
.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Garcia.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Garcia (04:50):
I'm good.
I hope you're well.
Shawn (04:52):
I am well.
We are recording this one daybefore the election, so our
conversation is going to bepretty apropos to the moment,
and that conversation is aboutimmigration, forced migration,
what drives it, the impact ithas on policy, particularly here
in the United States.
Immigration has played anintense role in our American
politics for a while now.
Rhetoric around immigration,demonization and disinformation
(05:14):
about who comes and why theycome, has contributed to a lot
of the polarization and divisionthat we're experiencing in the
states, and a little of thatrhetoric focuses on what drives
immigration and how.
Our inability, or maybe ourunwillingness, to discuss this
in any meaningful way means thatwe probably won't be
effectively addressing increasedimmigration into the country
(05:35):
with any good policy in the nearfuture.
Like I said, we're recordingthis just the day before the
election, so it's hard to saywhat shape immigration policy
could take in the very nearfuture, but it's probably safe
to say that, regardless, under aTrump or Harris administration,
it's going to be a hot issue.
So I'm glad to have you here totalk to me about this.
It's nice to be here, Thank youabout it as voluntary, even
(06:02):
when undertaken under duress.
But there are drivers to thisthat maybe, ancillarily, people
understand but don't really diginto or think too much about.
So can you explain what forcedmigration is and what it looks
like today, maybe some examplesof where it's happening and then
some of the things thatinfluence it or make it manifest
?
Dr. Garcia (06:19):
Forced migration is any movement of people that is
involuntary, and it's existedthroughout history.
It's been prompted by conquestand colonization, by war and
revolution, religiouspersecution and sectarian
violence, but also environmentaldisruption and climate change.
You know, I think we tend tosee forced migration from areas
(06:43):
that experience authoritarianregimes.
So authoritarian regimes haveplayed a role in driving
migration, because these regimesare oppressive.
They silence speech, they barfree association, they persecute
dissidents, they punish theiropponents or anyone who is
transgressive in any way.
It's all about control, and, inthe worst case scenario, people
(07:06):
are made to disappear inauthoritarian regimes, and so,
under these circumstances, youcan understand that many people
choose to move elsewhere.
They migrate to avoid fallingvictim to the regime, to avoid a
generalized climate of violenceor simply to avoid getting
caught up in the crossfire ofwarring factions, because
authoritarian regimes alwaysproduce a backlash.
(07:29):
Now we're seeing more and moreclimate-driven migration.
Historically, climate changehas always forced migration.
Sudden impact weather eventslike hurricanes, earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions havedisplaced people from their
homes and their livelihoods formillennia, but so, too, have
longer-term conditions likedrought, desertification, the
(07:51):
salination of freshwater sources.
You know it's part of the humanstory.
The difference is that todaythere are 8 billion people on
the planet, so climate change isaccelerating much more rapidly,
and the changes that onceoccurred over millennia are now
occurring over decades, and sowe can expect to see more
climate-driven forced migrationin the decades to come.
(08:13):
And as natural resourcesdiminish, the potential for
conflict also increases, alsocontributing to migration, which
is why the Pentagon has calledclimate change a threat
multiplier to migration which iswhy the Pentagon has called
climate change a threatmultiplier.
Shawn (08:30):
So one of the things that's particularly interesting
to me is the patterns that comeout of forced migration specific
to you know, if we think aboutthings like authoritarianism and
climate change, as youmentioned, I guess I'm wondering
, before we dig into the impactsof this, have you been able to
discern any particular patternsas it relates to where people
are coming from, where they'regoing and have some idea of what
that's going to look like orthe shape that's going to take
(08:52):
in the coming decades?
Dr. Garcia (08:54):
Well, every nation on the planet is experiencing
climate change.
You know there's no way tocounter that, but right now
there are certain areas ofcertainly in our hemisphere that
are on the front lines ofclimate change and the small
island states, for example, arean obvious area that is impacted
(09:15):
by climate change because oferoding coastlines.
You know, in the case of someislands in the Caribbean, for
example, that have experiencedvolcanic eruptions and other
kind of driver of migration,livelihoods have disappeared,
people have been forced to moveto other islands or to other
countries in the hemisphere.
(09:35):
So the small island states inthe Caribbean, but also in the
Pacific and Indian Oceans, theyare on the front lines of
climate change.
Pacific and Indian Oceans theyare on the front lines of
climate change.
But, here in our hemisphere,central America is.
You know, some people considerit the epicenter of climate
change, because Central America,this kind of very thin isthmus,
(09:56):
is affected by hurricanes onboth coasts, you know, on the
Caribbean Sea and on the PacificOcean.
They are also prone to drought,they experience volcanic
eruptions and earthquakes.
So lives and livelihoods areaffected on a regular basis,
making it really hard to recoverfrom from these climate impacts
(10:19):
.
And then you add to this thatthese are countries that are
still recovering from war, fromthe wars of the 1980s.
They are countries thatexperience political and
criminal violence.
You know it just, it'saltogether, it's a recipe for
out-migration.
Shawn (10:34):
We're seeing this in Europe, as we are in the United
States, which is increasedmigration, increased immigration
.
In the past decade and a half,it's increased exponentially,
and one of the implications fordemocracies in these countries
is absent good policy.
What this has created orgenerated is bad blood and
(10:57):
demonization of immigrants insuch a way that it's actually
producing authoritariantendencies within the populace.
That's then manifesting at theelite level, and you know, I
think we're seeing that in theUnited States as well.
So, to me, absent good policythat seems to be one of the
implications for democraticnations is that bad policy
related to immigration, coupledwith negative and demonizing
(11:20):
rhetoric, actually erodesdemocracy, and so I'm wondering
what other implications you see?
How does that affectdemocracies of democratic
nations?
Dr. Garcia (11:30):
Well, yes, you're absolutely right.
I think the arrival of largenumbers of migrants in a short
period of time can cause allkinds of pressures on a host
society.
It can have a destabilizingeffect because migrants put
pressure on public services Inthe short term.
Migrants require assistance.
They require healthcare,housing, jobs, education, and
(11:54):
this can generate resentmentfrom the host population and, if
not addressed, that resentmentcan create a populist backlash
that can topple a local state ornational government.
Immigrants are often perceivedto be threats to one's
livelihood, to the economy, to anation's cultural identity, to
(12:15):
national security, and that canlead to political polarization,
anti-immigrant sentiment,discrimination, segregation,
even anti-immigrant violence.
But that doesn't have to be theend game.
If migration is managed well,immigrants can contribute to the
economic revitalization of anarea where everyone can win.
(12:36):
Many refugees in the UnitedStates, for example, have high
rates of entrepreneurship andworkforce participation that
have helped revitalize citiesthat were once in economic and
population decline.
We see this most specificallyin my home state of New York,
where places like Rochester andUtica and Syracuse have
(12:57):
experienced a revitalization inpart because of the influx of
refugees and other immigrantgroups that have had high
workforce participation andentrepreneurship.
Shawn (13:06):
So there's a history and research around this history of
how authoritarian regimesactually exploit migration as a
political tool.
You know, if I think aboutVenezuela, it doesn't make sense
to me that authoritarians wouldwant to create an environment
in which people are forced toleave because, at the end of the
day, they're hollowing out acountry that they ostensibly
(13:28):
intend to lead.
So what is the political end toa means such as forced
migration?
Dr. Garcia (13:34):
Authoritarian regimes exploit migration in
multiple ways, you know.
The most obvious way is toexport dissent.
When social pressure buildswithin a society, authoritarian
regimes often encourage thedisaffected and the dissident to
leave, and in so doing theyundercut international arguments
that they are repressivebecause, you know, after all,
(13:55):
they're allowing people tomigrate.
But ultimately it's all aboutcontrol.
Migration in this context isabout maintaining their
authority.
They want to export thetroublemakers.
For authoritarian regimes,migration can also be a form of
population control.
They can force undesirablepopulations to leave, either by
making life really reallydifficult for them or by forcing
(14:18):
them to leave at gunpoint.
If they don't like anethno-racial minority or
religious group, for example,they can force those populations
to leave.
But authoritarians also regimesalso, you know are using
migration strategically in otherstrategic ways.
So they realize that migrationcan be used to generate wealth,
because they know that migrantssend remittances and consumer
(14:42):
goods back home to theirfamilies and communities in the
billions of dollars each year,and this too helps to keep the
population pacified andultimately helps to keep
authoritarian regimes in power.
Other ways that authoritarianregimes might also use migration
is as a weapon.
They can weaponize migration tocreate problems for a
(15:03):
neighboring country in order todestabilize it.
But the most common way thatauthoritarian regimes use
migration is as a scapegoat.
It takes the heat off of them.
You know, immigrants are easytargets, especially if they are
perceived to be competing forjobs or perceived to be
receiving more benefits than thegeneral population has access
(15:24):
to, and so governmentsoftentimes encourage these
resentments and deliberately pinpopulations against each other.
Because it takes the heat offof them and, once again, it
helps to maintain theirauthority.
Shawn (15:37):
So you touched on this a little bit, but I guess this
seems relatively obvious, andmaybe it is.
What is the impact thatauthoritarian regimes, or what
do we know about the impact ofmigration on neighboring regimes
or regions?
What is the impact that thishas on stability in regions and
neighboring countries?
Dr. Garcia (15:55):
You know it can have a destabilizing effect.
As you have pointed out, if anauthoritarian regime is actively
encouraging migration to exportdissent or to weaponize it in
some way to destabilize an enemy, that migration has a
destabilizing effect on thecountries that border these
(16:18):
authoritarian regimes andultimately that leads to more
tension, escalates tension inthe region that can, in the
worst case scenario, lead toconflict, to war, to violence.
That then produces even moremigration, out-migration, and
then, you know, the migrationgoes further out.
(16:39):
So we saw this, for example,during the wars in Central
America, where at first, whenpeople were displaced from their
homes because of thegeneralized climate of violence
or because they were caught inthe crossfire, they moved
internally within their owncountries, and then they started
moving to other countrieswithin Central America.
So Nicaraguans settled in CostaRica in very large numbers, for
(17:01):
example, but with every passingyear the radius expanded.
People moved into Mexico, theymoved further north into the
United States and towards Canada.
So the number of countries thatwere directly affected by the
wars in Central America and bythe migration produced by these
wars increased with everypassing year.
Shawn (17:24):
Specific to immigration and migration in Central and, I
guess, northern South America.
Are there any countries thatare managing that immigration or
the influx of immigrants welland have good immigration policy
?
Or are you concerned kind ofacross the board?
Dr. Garcia (17:41):
No, I think.
Since the wars in CentralAmerica, there's been an effort
by the nations of the region tocome together periodically to
discuss issues of mutual concern, and migration is one of those
issues of mutual concern.
So one of the first attempts toaddress migration, for example,
was the Cartagena Declaration,where the nations first of all
(18:03):
defined for what a refugee wasand you know it was a
non-binding declaration, but itwas at least a recognition that
there were many reasons whypeople migrate and that the
nations of the region had aparticular obligation to provide
either temporary or permanentrefuge to people who were
displaced.
And so, since then, the nationsof the region have met
(18:26):
periodically to discuss issuesof mutual concern.
The most recent attempt wasduring the Biden administration,
when the Biden administrationtried to address the root causes
of migration from the Americas,and this led to the Los Angeles
Declaration of 2022, where 22nations agreed to work together
(18:48):
to create more job opportunitiesthat would help keep people
home.
They secured commitments fromcorporations to invest more
money in infrastructure or tocreate more jobs in the region,
for example.
They were especially concernedabout Central America.
There has been an attempt toalso discuss ways to develop
(19:09):
climate resiliency so thatpeople can exercise that basic
human right to stay home,because we realize that moving
forward, that climate change isa reality.
We're not meeting the targetsof the Paris Agreement and even
if we did, climate change is afast moving train and it will
take decades before we see thefull effects of addressing, of
(19:34):
meeting those climatecommitments.
And so in the meantime we needto help populations adapt to the
realities of climate change intheir agricultural production,
in their housing, in theirinfrastructure, so they can
exercise that basic human rightto stay home and that becomes a
way of addressing migration.
But then there will always bepopulations who cannot adapt to
(19:57):
the realities of climate changeof the region need to work
together to manage migration, tocreate resettlement programs
that share the burden equitably,because there will be
populations that, through nofault of their own, will have to
migrate.
Shawn (20:14):
So, before we get into this specific moment or
political moment in the UnitedStates, I guess I would like a
little bit of help understandinghistory as it relates to the US
policies related to forcedmigrants.
So could you help me understandif the United States has done a
good job historically ofaddressing the needs of forced
migrants and immigration intothe country and if so, what does
(20:35):
it look like?
And if not, why not?
Dr. Garcia (20:38):
The short answer is yes and no.
Yes, the United States hasaccommodated millions of people
from around the globe over thecourse of its history, but also,
you know, running parallel tothat very that history of
generosity is also a history ofhostility.
And this hostility towardsimmigrant has also been part of
(21:00):
the US story.
So we celebrate our immigrantheritage through parades and
folklife festivals and we callourselves a nation of immigrants
, which is a very problematicframing because of course it
obscures the experience ofpeople who were not immigrants,
people who became Americanthrough conquest or through
enslavement.
But anyway, we do celebratethat immigrant heritage and we
(21:23):
call ourselves a nation ofimmigrants.
But alongside that sentimentare calls for greater and
greater restrictions onimmigration, and that's been
true throughout our history.
All you have to do is readBenjamin Franklin's writings on
the Germans of Pennsylvania, forexample, or take a look at some
of the anti-Irish politicalcartoons created by Thomas Nast
(21:45):
to see that hostility or thatfear and suspicion of immigrants
has also been part of theAmerican story.
When the federal governmentassumed responsibility for
immigration control in the late19th century, for immigration
control in the late 19th century, one of the first groups they
targeted for exclusion were theChinese, and with every passing
decade Congress barred more andmore people they considered
(22:08):
undesirable, or whoever theyconsidered undesirable at a
particular moment.
So at some points it was theimpoverished that they wanted to
bar the illiterate, asians,southern and Eastern Europeans,
mormons, homosexuals and indeedsome of the most draconian
immigration laws were passedbetween 1917 and 1924.
(22:31):
So today's immigration laws andpolicies are part of this
longer legal tradition.
Now, having said that, sincethe 1980s, we've seen a greater
emphasis on controllingunauthorized migration.
More and more money is beingspent on technologies and on
manpower to track, detain andexpel unauthorized immigrants.
(22:56):
The Department of HomelandSecurity, where most of our
immigration services are located, is now the largest federal
office in American history, andwe're also seeing the rise of
immigration detention centersthat are privatized and run by a
multi-billion dollarcorporation.
So that is new.
That's a new development in ourhistory.
(23:19):
What makes this particularmoment different and dangerous,
though, is the speed throughwhich rumor and disinformation
and vitriol spread on socialmedia, and how that you know.
Because of the speed of thatmiscommunication, it increases
the likelihood of violence.
So the most obvious example isyou know, the lies that
(23:41):
circulated this past fall aboutthe Haitians of Springfield,
ohio, and the consequences thatthat had not only for Haitians,
but also for people who lived inthe broader community.
What has become clear, to me atleast, is that, at this present
moment, most Americans don'tknow how the immigration system
works.
You know, all you have to do islook at some of the posts on
(24:06):
social media about immigration,and it's clear that students,
that Americans, never study thisin grade school or in high
school.
It's not part of their civichistory courses, if they take
civic history at all, you know,it's just they don't know how
the immigration system works,and so the most obvious example,
for example, is the asylumsystem.
(24:27):
So, yes, it's true that todaywe have more asylum seekers
arriving at ports of entry thanever before, and this has been
true actually, since the 1980s.
Since the 1980s, we've seen agrowing number of asylum seekers
, but most of these asylumseekers will never have a chance
to make a case for themselvesin an asylum court because they
(24:50):
won't pass the initial crediblefear interview and they will be
removed through a process knownas expedited removal.
And they will be removed througha process known as expedited
removal.
Even those who do pass thisinitial scrutiny, the credible
fear test, and even those whoare allowed to enter to receive
an asylum hearing within two tothree years, even they will face
(25:11):
enormous obstacles.
Today, roughly 20% of asylumseekers are successful.
So this perception on socialmedia that's circulating that
everybody who is being allowedinto the country will get to
stay here permanently is justnot true.
It's just that we have aninternational and a domestic
obligation to grant people whohave passed that credible fear
(25:33):
test the right to make a casefor themselves in an asylum
court.
It doesn't mean that they willreceive asylum as I said, about
20% of asylum seekers aresuccessful but they do have a
right to make a case forthemselves if they pass that
initial credible fear interview.
But you know, as I said, mostpeople it's become clear just
(25:54):
from reading social media thatmost Americans really don't have
a sense of how the asylumsystem works or the immigration
system as a whole.
Shawn (26:05):
One of the things that is particularly interesting maybe
mind boggling to me in the past,I guess decade or so is just
how salient the issue ofimmigration has become to people
that I'm not quite sure areparticularly impacted one way or
the other by it.
Because I don't live on a landborder, and particularly the
southern land border, I don'thave a sense of how tangibly
(26:30):
real this problem or issue is,and so, to get at the heart of
it is the I don't like puttingit in these terms, but is the
problem associated withimmigration in our political
rhetoric?
Is that a red herring?
Is that a political creation,or is it truly a problem that
I'm just not seeing?
Dr. Garcia (26:48):
Well, it's both and actually the situation that you
described is not altogether new.
I mean, when you look at thearc of immigration history,
oftentimes the most heatedopposition to immigration within
the United States came fromareas that didn't really
experience much immigration, andthat's where you see, as you
say, the impact of leadership orthe absence of leadership in
(27:12):
helping to explain a particularproblem.
But are Americans wrong to beconcerned?
No, not necessarily.
I mean there are growingnumbers of people coming to the
border to seek entry.
Some are trying to enterwithout authorization.
This has been true, you know,for a very long period of time
(27:35):
and, yes, there are a growingnumber of asylum seekers, but
there are also checks in placethat prevent a lot of people
from entering.
You know, it's easy to thinkthat our borders are porous when
you see these images in thenewspapers of migrant caravans
or people kind of sneakingthrough vulnerable areas of
(27:56):
fencing entering the UnitedStates.
But there are also so manychecks in place that prevent
that from happening as well.
As I said earlier, I mean ourimmigration services within the
Department of Homeland Securityare now among the most funded
and there are bills currently inCongress that are on hold that
(28:17):
would expand the immigrationbureaucracy even further and
increase the technology and themanpower even more.
So there are a number of legaland technological and manpower
checks in place to prevent ourborders from being too porous.
Now, you know, a lot of it isdisinformation.
(28:39):
I think you're right.
I think that many politicianshave used migration as part of
their culture wars, you knowthis is one of the ways that
they've been able to either getthemselves elected or to stay in
office is by stoking, you know,anger and fear and resentment,
(29:00):
and, you know, kind of focusingon the culture wars.
You know there's a lot oflanguage about how we are under
siege, that the white populationis in decline, that you know
that there are all these kind ofdiscourses that are circulating
, which are not new, by the way.
I mean, again, you see them allthroughout American history,
but they have particularsalience at particular moments
(29:22):
in time, and I think somepoliticians have been quite
masterful at exploiting themright.
And then, when you add to thatsocial media and the lack of
checks on social media and theease with which disinformation
travels Springfield, for example, as just one of many examples
it's a recipe for disaster andpeople get quite worked up about
(29:44):
it, but at the same time, I'mhopeful.
I'm hopeful, yes,disinformation can undermine
humanitarian policies.
So I study refugees and asylumseekers in particular, and this
is an aspect of immigrationpolicy that is very important to
me, especially as someone whois a refugee herself.
(30:05):
You know my family benefitedfrom American generosity in the
1960s, when we were allowed toimmigrate from Cuba, and so I
would like to see thathumanitarian tradition continue
in the United States and I'mhopeful that it will.
And you know I am worried thatdisinformation can undermine
these humanitarian policies.
(30:27):
But sometimes what you need isjust leadership and the will to
open the door policy.
In this country, for example,you see how the executive branch
or members of Congress oftencreated tracks for admission
because they felt it was theright thing to do, even though
the public opinion polls wereshowing them that Americans were
(30:47):
ambivalent or even outrightopposed to a group of people.
We saw this during the Cold Warwith American generosity
towards Hungarians and Cubansand Southeast Asians who were
admitted to the United States invery large numbers.
And in recent years the Bidenadministration has granted entry
to Ukrainians and to the Afghanallies, again because of a
(31:10):
sense of obligation.
But they also exercised thepolitical will to do so, despite
what the public opinion pollswere telling them.
And at other times, you know,when you study the arc of US
immigration history, you alsosee how advocacy has helped to
pry open the door to the UnitedStates.
You know advocacy fromnon-governmental organizations
(31:31):
and from faith-based communitieswho put pressure on an
administration that was hostileto immigration.
So the classic case from therecent past is again the Central
Americans of the 1980s.
We saw how American oppositionto the American presence in
Central America and Americansupport for Salvadorans and
(31:53):
other Central Americans, howthis eventually forced Congress
to create tracks for admissionfor these populations.
So I'm hopeful that Americanswill continue to grant admission
to vulnerable populations.
But you know, having said that,it's also really important to
recognize that, despite Americangenerosity over the generations
(32:15):
American generosity over thegenerations and yes, we have
admitted so many immigrants,refugees and asylum seekers over
the course of the generationsbut it's also important to
recognize that the top 10resettlement nations combined,
including the United States,today accommodate less than 1%
of the world's refugees.
(32:36):
It's usually the nations thatborder areas of crisis that
accommodate the greatest numberof refugees.
So, despite our humanitariantradition, when it comes to
refugees and asylum seekers, theneed is just so large and the
number of refugees who have beenaccommodated are just a drop in
the bucket.
Shawn (32:56):
The two political parties in the United States have
become so divergent onimmigration policy in the last
handful of years in a way thatyou know just didn't exist prior
.
So, like I think in 2000 withBush versus Gore, you know the
two candidates had somedifferences on their immigration
policy, but it wasn't a youknow, a yawning chasm, and same
(33:17):
in 2008, although we werebeginning to see the stirrings
of that, But't a you know, ayawning chasm, and same in 2008,
although we were beginning tosee the stirrings of that.
But ever since, you know, Isuppose about 2016, we can't
ignore the elephant in the room.
Trump's rhetoric related toimmigration and his as much as
you could package policy onimmigration has really widened
the gap between Democratic andRepublican policy.
(33:37):
And that's not to say thatDemocrats have great policy on
immigration and Republicansdon't.
But one of the things that youoften hear is, at the end of the
day, a lot of this is justposturing, and especially in an
election year.
In 2004, Bush did this withsame-sex marriage.
It was a big flare up duringthe election year and then it
just kind of calmed down.
But immigration I've heard thisas well as a mitigating kind of
(33:59):
consideration, which is this isan election year, so there's
just a lot of rhetoric aroundimmigration, but if they, after
the election, this eventually,you know, just kind of calmed
down, it won't be as bad asTrump makes it seem like it will
under him.
But we do have two candidates,Trump and Harris, that are
giving us very different visionsfor what immigration and
migration policy could look likein the future.
(34:20):
Do you see this as similar toprevious election kind of
rhetoric around this issue, ordo you see this as something
different?
Dr. Garcia (34:28):
No, it's different.
It's different.
First, I would want tochallenge the perception that
the Democrats are open border,because they're not.
I mean, when you look at forexample, removal and deportation
rates.
Under Democratic administrationsthey are as high, or even
higher, than you know, duringRepublican administrations, the
(34:50):
Biden administration, forexample.
Well, initially the courtsprevented him from lifting the
migrant protection protocols inTitle 42.
But eventually, when those werephased out, other checks were
put in place, the CBP1 app, forexample, which has made it
really, really hard for asylumseekers to even access the
(35:13):
asylum system in the UnitedStates.
So he has implemented certainchecks to try to discourage
people from coming to the UnitedStates.
So he has implemented certainchecks to try to discourage
people from coming to the UnitedStates.
So I want to challenge theperception that the Democrats
have an open border policy,because that has never been true
.
Now, having said that, theRepublican policy under Trump is
(35:38):
just so, so different, and wesaw what he could do.
During his first administration, Refugee admissions were at an
all-time low.
For example, you know, when theRefugee Act was passed in 1980,
it set a minimum quota of50,000 per year.
In 1980, it set a minimum quotaof 50,000 per year, and most
(36:03):
administrations have admittedbetween 100,000 and 125,000
refugees per year.
But towards the tail end of hisadministration the quota had
been set at 15,000, and eventhen the quota wasn't met.
So it was the lowest admissionrates for refugees ever since
the passage of the 1980 RefugeeAct.
But then there were otherimmigration policies that were
(36:25):
put into place that were soworrisome, you know, the
so-called Muslim ban, which waschallenged in the courts and was
ultimately implemented oncethey added other countries into
the ban, like Venezuela.
The attempts to eradicatetemporary protected status, TPS,
which again was held up in thecourts.
(36:48):
So there were checks in placeduring the first administration
that prevented the mostdraconian policies from being
fully implemented.
But I'm not so sure thosechecks will be in place should
he be elected for a second time.
And so he has promised, you know, a roundup, detention and
(37:09):
deportation of the entireunauthorized population in the
United States, and I think weshould take him at his word.
This has happened before.
You know, in the 1930s and the1950s, undocumented residents of
the United States were roundedup and deported.
Oftentimes American citizenswere caught up in the dragnet
(37:31):
too, because there weren't very,you know, many, many attempts
to check for citizenship.
Families were affected, and sowhen he threatens to have
another roundup, I think weshould take him at his word.
I think that this would happenNow.
This will have direconsequences for the economy
because it will.
When you remove millions ofpeople who are responsible for
(37:54):
the planting and harvesting ofcrops, for providing services
and employment and constructionand other industries, when you
round them up and suddenlydeport them, that will have
consequences for the economy.
It will raise prices on goodsand services, certainly on the
food that we eat, but it willhave an impact on families.
(38:18):
You know the Republicans havealways prided themselves on
through the payment of salestaxes and local and property and
(38:40):
federal taxes and have providedso much to our country through
their labor.
That will affect so manyfamilies because there are so
many Americans who live in mixedstatus families and so it will
be consequential for many, manypeople.
I think we will all be affectedin some way because of his
(39:00):
policies.
Shawn (39:02):
How does deportation work ?
We talk about the impact itmight have on the economy.
Talk about the impact it wouldhave on people.
Here, Do we know typically whathappens to people when they're
deported and sent back?
Dr. Garcia (39:14):
Not really.
I mean, once people are removedfrom the United States, we
don't know what happens to them,and that's particularly
worrisome when young people areremoved from the United States,
for example.
We don't keep track of whathappens to them, how people try
to rebuild their lives when theyare removed.
Some may attempt to reenter theUnited States and that will
(39:43):
have legal consequences for themif they attempt to reenter
after they have been formallydeported.
But there are many ways thatpeople are removed from the
United States that don'tnecessarily entail deportation
and there's a wonderful bookwritten by my colleague, adam
Goodman, called the DeportationMachine, where he looks at the
history of forced removal andthe ways that people were either
(40:07):
convinced to leave the UnitedStates through a campaign of
violence or hostility, or wereforcibly removed, where they
agreed to remove themselves,either legally, you know, or
just left the United States oftheir own volition.
But then you have to wonder howfree that choice was.
(40:29):
If there was a campaign ofintimidation and violence
against you that convinced youthat it was time to pack up and
go, so you?
So I think we can expect to seesome of that.
If Trump is elected tomorrow, Ithink we can expect to see the
state engage in an activecampaign of rounding up and
(40:51):
removing people from the UnitedStates.
But I think also there will bea climate of fear and
intimidation and violence thatwill convince many people to say
, hey, you know, it's not worthit.
I'm going to return to mycountry of origin.
I think that that's a decisionthat might be easier.
(41:22):
Most people will try to stayuntil until the state comes
knocking on their door.
Shawn (41:28):
All signs, all polling signs, seem to suggest that, you
know, trump is doing betterwith the Hispanic vote than he
did in 2016 and 2020.
And Harris is doing worse thanDemocrats have in the past.
After the election we'll seehow that is all borne out, but
given Trump's policies specificto Latin America, immigration
(41:48):
from Latin America and hisprofessed policies, what do you
think is happening here?
I tend to think there might bea gendered component to this,
but I'm not sure.
Dr. Garcia (41:58):
Yeah, that's a great question.
I think many of us are tryingto understand it.
You know, some decades agothose Latinos who voted
Republican tended to come fromleftist authoritarian regimes
who were very angry towardscommunism and they felt that the
(42:21):
Republican Party was strongeragainst communism, towards
checking communism.
And so during the 1980s, forexample, cubans and Nicaraguans
and others who had fledleft-wing regimes were quite
impressed by Reagan and histough stance towards communism.
(42:42):
But since then, in more recentdecades, we've seen some really
interesting realignments andreasons for voting Republican.
You know, for many Latinos whoare Catholic or evangelical
Christian, for them abortion isa very important issue.
(43:02):
In many cases it's a one issueidentification.
This is the one issue that theycare the most about, and so
they are.
They will vote Republicanbecause they feel that the
Republican Party isanti-abortion, is more
pro-family, is more traditionalfamily values, and so they will.
They feel more comfortable inthe Republican camp.
(43:26):
For others, you know, believeit or not, you know this this
kind of legal posturing thatthat they see in Trump, they
don't find it alienatingnecessarily, especially if
they're first generationimmigrants.
They might be coming fromcountries where they're familiar
with that style of politics,that bravado right.
(43:47):
And they don't find it asalienating as, say, a third or
fourth generation Latino who ismore thoroughly assimilated into
life in the United States.
So there are many, manydifferent reasons why Latinos
might vote Republican, whyLatinos might vote Republican.
(44:08):
And you're right, we're seeing,you know, anywhere from 30 to
40 percent of Latinos todayidentify as Republican and are
voting Republican, although yousee a higher percentage rate
among some populations more thanothers.
Right.
But you know, I think it'simportant to underscore that the
Latino population is quitediverse, and that's 65 million
people from you know, over 20different nations with very
(44:29):
different experiences andmotivations for having come to
the United States.
Some, have you know, are fifth,sixth, seventh generation
American.
Others are more recent arrivals.
So, you know, when you havesuch a large and diverse
population, it's going to beimpossible to find one political
issue or one political onepolitician who is going to
(44:51):
appeal to such a large anddiverse population.
Shawn (44:55):
We're experiencing democratic backsliding in what
would what would have beencharacterized as very stable
democracies in past.
You know we're seeing that inEuropean countries, to some
extent in the United States aswell, and we're seeing a rise of
authoritarianism in otherplaces.
And this is fluid.
Democracies wax and wane, samewith authoritarian regimes.
(45:15):
But what maybe feels a littledifferent is that it's happening
to great powers in a way thatfeels destabilizing.
We're seeing some significantdemocratic backsliding in the
United States.
We're seeing Russia being muchmore aggressive on the world
stage, China's more assertive.
One thing that this does isthat portends the idea that
there probably will be moremigration related to the rise of
(45:36):
authoritarianism around theworld.
But the other is, you know, tomaintain stability in the world,
but to specific regions, youreally need countries to
cooperate around issues likeimmigration and migration,
Otherwise it can unspool rightand it can become very
destabilizing globally.
Given the context of, you know,these rising powers,
(45:59):
authoritarian powers and kind ofa waning of democracy globally,
it feels a little, I don't wantto say hopeless, but it feels
existential to some degree.
Dr. Garcia (46:10):
I understand why you feel that way.
I think authoritariangovernments can undermine
international cooperation and Ithink, now more than ever, you
know we need to cooperate.
The lack of cooperation isparticularly worrisome in an age
of accelerated climate change.
I think, now more than ever,nations need to work together to
(46:32):
help populations most at riskadapt to the realities of
climate change.
We need to work together tomanage migration for those who
can adapt.
We need to work together toaddress the reasons why climate
change is accelerating in thefirst place.
So, yes, at this particularmoment, when scientists are
telling us that we are fastapproaching the point of no
(46:53):
return, you know we need to haveinternational cooperation.
But one of the arguments that Ihear over and over again is from
Americans is well, why shouldwe abide by the Paris agreement?
Why should we contort ourselvesto try to reach these goals If
China is not cooperating, orRussia or whatever?
(47:14):
Fill in the blank?
But if we're going to waituntil we have a hundred percent
cooperation, it's just not goingto happen, I think.
I think those countries,democracies, the wealthier
nations, have a particularobligation to take the lead on
this, and especially when youconsider that the countries that
(47:35):
are currently on the frontlines of climate change are
countries that are formercolonies, whose wealth was
extracted for the benefit ofwealthier nations.
Today, they are some of thepoorest and most indebted
nations on the planet, and so Ithink the wealthier nations,
democratic nations, have aparticular obligation to these
countries, these lesserdeveloped countries, many of
(47:57):
which have authoritariangovernments, because they're on
the front lines and, in theinterest of justice, I think we
have an obligation to help, toassist and, through leadership,
we need to work together toaddress climate change, but
climate change is one of many,many issues that we need to
(48:18):
secure international cooperationon, but certainly for me, I
think it's one of the mostimportant ones.
For me, I think it's one of themost important ones, and I hope
my concern about the upcomingelection here in the United
States is that we will forgetabout climate change should
Trump be elected.
For example, I mean, oneadministration considers, or one
political candidate, onecampaign considers, climate
(48:39):
change to be a hoax.
Another one acknowledges thatit's real and that we need to
work with other nations toaddress its impact.
So I think this election couldnot be more consequential for
the United States, but also forthe world.
Shawn (48:55):
This touches on something that I've been thinking about
related to policy generally, Isuppose, but you know, in the
context of our conversationimmigration policy and migrant
policy it's not that policiescan remain static.
It has to evolve to meet theday, to meet the moment.
As you've talked about, climatechange is increasingly an issue
.
We're seeing authoritarianismsprouting in different regions
(49:17):
in the world in ways that youknow didn't exist just 10 years
ago.
That has an implication forimmigration and migrant policy.
It's not just that our policyis remaining the same or has
remained the same or wouldremain the same.
It's that it's regressing andwe need it to actually be
progressing right.
I guess I'm wondering what youthink good policy could or
(49:39):
should look like or how itshould be addressing some of
these issues.
Dr. Garcia (49:44):
Well, good policy constantly needs to adapt to the
realities of the world aroundus.
Let me give you refugee policyis just one example.
So our definition of refugee isvery precise and it's modeled
after the UN definition ofrefugee, which identifies a
refugee as a person with awell-founded fear of persecution
(50:05):
on account of race, religion,nationality, membership in a
particular social group orpolitical opinion.
So nowhere in that definitiondo you see any reference to
gender, sexuality, climatechange there are many ways that
populations become vulnerableand, unfortunately, the law
doesn't always keep track withvulnerability and the ways that
(50:29):
people become vulnerable, right?
So I think it becomesimperative for the United States
and other nations to, if theydon't want to change existing
law, at least to createcomplementary tracks for
admission.
So if you don't want to tweakthe refugee definition to
include climate change, forexample, then we need to
(50:49):
consider creating acomplementary track that
provides for both temporary andpermanent residents to people
who have been displaced by theenvironment or by accelerating
climate change.
Likewise, there have to beguidelines to provide
accommodation to people who areexperiencing violence on account
(51:09):
of gender and sexuality.
So we need to be adaptive.
I think our immigration system,our immigration law, has been
produced ad hoc in response toparticular concerns.
Ad hoc and response toparticular concerns.
So, for example, during WorldWar II and during the Cold War,
(51:30):
we adapted immigration policy.
We changed it to accommodatepopulations that were of concern
, people that we needed toaccommodate because of our
foreign policy interests orbecause of humanitarian concerns
.
It was deemed in the nationalinterest.
Likewise, in the post-Cold Warperiod, we also adapted
(51:50):
immigration policy also torespond to particular domestic
concerns about national securityand terrorism, and so we
adjusted our immigration policy.
And so we need to continue tobe adaptive.
We need to examine both how toserve our domestic interests in
terms of labor, but we also needto recognize that we have
(52:14):
particular humanitarianobligations as a world leader to
also accommodate vulnerablepopulations, and vulnerability
changes across the generations.
And we need to continue to kindof see where the need is and
create opportunities forvulnerable populations to seek
refuge in the United States.
Shawn (52:37):
Okay, final question.
You ready for it?
Sure, what's somethinginteresting you've been reading,
watching, listening to or doinglately?
Dr. Garcia (52:48):
you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing
lately.
Well, I've been spending a lotof time in nature recently just
to keep my sanity, I think youknow, at the end of the day,
after a day in class, after youknow, trying to stay on top of
everything that's happening ininternational fairs and on the
domestic front, I need time torevitalize, to decompress, and
(53:11):
so I'm spending a lot of time innature.
Fortunately, ithaca, new York,is a beautiful place to do that.
There are wonderful hikingtrails and waterfalls and it's a
beautiful place.
So I'm very fortunate to livehere.
So that's what I've been doing,s.
What about?
Shawn (53:28):
you.
Funny enough, I also have beenfeeling very anxious about the
state of the world.
Some people, I think, wouldcall it hysteria.
I don't think so.
I think it's probably verypractical.
But what I've been doing isI've been doing a lot of reading
about past conflicts.
(53:48):
I think the reason is becausethey're behind us and I'm trying
to find sites like it's alittle bit of like a security
blanket in that you know, theworld has gone through some
pretty horrible things and theworld is going through some
pretty horrible things, but allthings come to an end and let's
just hope it's for better andnot for worse.
Dr. Garcia (54:04):
I guess horrible things, but all things come to
an end and let's just hope it'sfor better and not for worse.
I guess yes, and historicallyand in the current moment, there
are so many people of goodwilland they are the.
They are who.
They give me hope.
Shawn (54:17):
I've been really thinking about.
I don't know how the news, howthis works, because the news
really taps into, I would almostsay like negative or salacious
emotions in us and I've beenwondering what the world would
look like if the news ran withyou know, a puppy was adopted
today more often than you knowsomething horrible.
Dr. Garcia (54:37):
Well, you're not off the mark, sean, I think, on
social media.
I think some of those Facebookpages, for example on puppies
and kittens, are attractingquite a bit of attention these
days.
Shawn (54:52):
That is true, dr Garcia.
Thank you for stopping by andhaving the conversation and, if
you haven't, don't forget tovote.
Dr. Garcia (55:00):
Oh, I already voted.
Thank you, and thank you somuch for inviting me, s.
I appreciate it.
Shawn (55:11):
It's clear that we're standing on the edge of a new
chapter in American history, onethat could bring profound
changes to our immigrationpolicies, our democratic norms
and our role on the world stage.
The stakes have never beenhigher, especially for millions
of immigrants and refugees wholook to the United States as a
beacon of hope, only to find anation grappling with its own
(55:34):
democratic identity and moraldirection.
As Dr Garcia highlighted, we'renot just talking about policy
debates here.
We're talking about human lives, families and communities that
are already vulnerable and willlikely face even greater
hardships in the coming years.
Disinformation, fear-mongeringand political maneuvering have
(55:54):
clouded our understanding ofimmigration, painting it as a
crisis to be combated ratherthan what it is a humanitarian
challenge to be met withcompassion and thoughtful
solutions.
This isn't just a politicalissue.
It's a moral one.
It's about who we want to be asa country and how we respond to
(56:15):
the pressing realities of achanging world.
So why should you care?
Because the consequences of asecond Trump presidency won't be
confined to political circlesor policy debates.
They'll impact the very heartof our society, the strength of
our democracy, the stability ofour economy and the lives of
millions.
It is upon each of us.
Now it's up to all of us tosift through the noise,
(56:37):
challenge, the disinformationand demand policies that reflect
the true values of this country, values that once made the
United States a sanctuary forthe oppressed.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.