Friday, July 18, 2025

Something to Know - 18 July (Andy Borowitz)


The Borowitz Report borowitzreport@substack.com 

9:49 AM (13 minutes ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
James Devaney/GC Images

When George W. Bush launched his War on Terror, I noted that it was the first time in history that someone had declared war on a human emotion. If Bush defeated terror, I wondered, what was next—shyness?

Now Donald Trump has declared a War on Laughter, and I suspect it will be every bit as successful as Bush's crusade.

Trump's fear of being laughed at is nothing short of pathological. For years he's been a crybaby about his portrayal on "Saturday Night Live." And it was Barack Obama's mockery of him at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner that reportedly impelled him to run for president. (Thanks, Obama.)

Like everything else rattling around in the commodious cavern of Trump's brain, his fear of ridicule is unoriginal: he shares it with pretty much every dictator in the world. You might have noticed, for example, that there isn't a thriving comedy scene in Pyongyang.

The autocrats' anxiety is entirely justified. Comedy is their kryptonite. They rule by intimidation, and when we laugh at them, their power to scare us evaporates. As Mark Twain wrote in The Mysterious Stranger (1916), "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."

Which brings me to Trump's latest target in his War on Laughter: Stephen Colbert.

Earlier this week, Colbert roasted the quislings at CBS's parent company, Paramount, for donating $16 million to Trump's presidential library to settle a risible lawsuit he filed against them. Given that Shari Redstone, Paramount's biggest shareholder since the death of her icky father, is desperate to keep the government from scuttling a merger that will make her even richer, Colbert was justified in calling the payment a "big fat bribe."

Yesterday, Trump's proxies at CBS dutifully canceled Colbert, issuing the following statement: "This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount."

No offense to Colbert, but the funniest comedian at CBS is whoever wrote that statement. They might be the most hilarious words ever typed, with the possible exception of the phrase "Trump's presidential library."

I seriously doubt this is the last we'll hear from the indefatigably creative Colbert, who will likely move to a new platform where he'll enjoy more freedom and financial success than he had at CBS.

And as for Trump, he might think he's winning the War on Laughter—but much like George W. Bush, he's going to discover that his mission is far from accomplished. He can cancel all the comedians he wants, but he will never make us stop laughing at him.


--
****
Juan Matute
The Harold Wilke House 
Claremont, California

Humpty Trumpty Shat on His Wall



Thursday, July 17, 2025

Something to Know - 17 July


The Mouth of Trump is his own worst enemy.   It is the one thing about him that reveals his characteristic traits that show his basic disregard for humanity and incompetence at his job.   He has come to the end of the line on his Epstein matter, and everything he has said before is blocking his attempt to get away from it.   The more he blabbers on, the less presidential he becomes (as if there was already room left to sink).   Problem is, he will probably try to do something rash to deflect attention.   And to that we must be prepared.   Satire is one way to throw gas on the flames - https://youtu.be/ELJhKli-dmk?si=Wz8yvQgYh3oWWm8p  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8iTvOawyU   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3X_kIAiB8w  (it helps to show the closed captions)


Trump's Epstein Answers Are Getting Worse

He's blaming Obama and calling the scandal "boring."


Donald Trump had two opportunities yesterday, and another this morning, to dispel any nagging sense that he is hiding incriminating information about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He did not make the most of them. Instead, he delivered an impersonation of a cornered man coated in flop sweat desperately trying to talk his way out.
Appearing on the White House lawn in the morning, the president responded to a question about whether Attorney General Pam Bondi had briefed him on the Epstein investigation.

"She's given us just a very quick briefing, and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen," Trump replied, "I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden infor—and we went through years of that, with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax."
This was a rather strange statement. If Trump and the Justice Department had discovered a plot to devise fake government files to discredit him, as he seemed to imply by comparing the Epstein scandal to the "Russia hoax," that would warrant at least a medium-size conversation, rather than a very quick briefing.

Also, Trump had claimed a few days before, on social media, that the files were written by "Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration." Perhaps Trump's update yesterday merely overlooked some of the perpetrators, but if Bondi has now exonerated Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director John Brennan of any involvement in the supposed Trump-Epstein frame-up, that, too, sounds like the sort of finding that would merit more than a brief check-in.
Later that day, at Andrews Air Force Base, Trump fielded another Epstein question. Asked why his supporters care about the issue, Trump expressed befuddlement. "I don't understand it, why they would be so interested. He's dead for a long time, he was never a big factor in terms of life," Trump said of Epstein.

It's hard to say exactly what Trump meant by a big factor in terms of life. Who among us is? If Epstein doesn't clear this bar, then not many people do. Certainly not, say, Rosie O'Donnell, but that didn't stop Trump from reintroducing the comedian as a topic of national discussion this week.
Trump proceeded to explain that the main issue holding back Epstein from being a bigger factor on the life scale is that his activities were simply uninteresting. "I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody," he said. "It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring."

So he's telling us that there was a plot involving the director of the CIA and FBI, two former presidents, and a former first lady to falsely implicate the current president in a pedophilic sex ring run by a mysterious billionaire, and the reason not to ask about the issue is that it's too boring?
Maybe Trump is just such an earnest policy wonk that he can't imagine why people would get distracted from meaty topics such as the substance of his trade deal with Indonesia, in favor of fluff like the Epstein scandal. And maybe he's so committed to moving on from the past that he doesn't want to expose the cabal of Trump enemies who fabricated a scurrilous charge against him.
But that doesn't really sound like the Trump we know. Indeed, given that he has spent eight years obsessing over the alleged crimes of Obama, Comey, Brennan, et al.—and just last week his Justice Department floated criminal charges against them related to their "Russia hoax" activities in 2017—one struggles to understand why, by his own account, he would stumble upon a wildly unethical and probably illegal scheme to undermine him by the people he is preoccupied with criminalizing, but decide to shrug it off gracefully.

In another post on Truth Social this morning, the president blamed his supporters for falling for a Democratic hoax. "Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker," he wrote, proceeding to disavow anybody who expresses interest in the story: "Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!"

The post did not explain what the Epstein hoax consists of. Is the hoax that the Trump administration promised to release a client list but failed to do so? That his administration is hiding something? Trump seemed to define the hoax as any attention to the matter at all. The non-hoax take on the Epstein story appears to be silence followed by changing the subject to the administration's unbroken string of triumphs.
Sometimes people sound guilty even if they aren't, especially if they're government officials. Still, whatever probability you had in your mind that the Epstein files contain damaging material, you should probably raise it after listening to Trump's remarks on the subject yesterday.



--
****
Juan Matute
The Harold Wilke House 
Claremont, California

Humpty Trumpty Shat on His Wall



Tuesday, July 15, 2025

The Gift That Keeps On Giving - The Mob Boss Portrait of Him and his Family


--
****
Juan Matute
The Harold Wilke House 
Claremont, California

Humpty Trumpty Shat on His Wall



Something to Know - 15 July

HCR gives us a very readable compressed history of our Immigration laws in the United States since the early years of the 20th century.   It is all about the public policies that have fluctuated up to now.   The needs of our economy and the intolerance of ethnic diversity have played a big role in the history of our nation.   As of now, it seems that the politicization based on old views, which dominate the MAGA agenda, are being rejected by a majority.   The Draconian face of theTrump agenda is being rejected, and Trump in his true nature is doubling down.   The best that can be said is that we live in interesting times.   However for the voiceless immigrants and the non-documented among us, it is a living hell right now.


Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American heathercoxrichardson@substack.com 

Jul 14, 2025, 9:53 PM (8 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Trump appointees insist they have a "mandate" to drive undocumented immigrants out of the U.S. and prevent new immigrants from coming in, and are launching a massive increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detention facilities to do so. But a poll released Friday shows that only 35% of American adults approve of Trump's handling of immigration, while 62% disapprove.

The poll shows a record 79% of adults saying immigration is good for the country, with only 17% seeing it as bad. Only 30% of American adults say immigration should be reduced.

The poll shows that 85% of American adults want laws to allow "immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Seventy-eight percent of American adults want the law to allow "immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Only 38% want the government to deport "all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country."

The poll shows Americans eager to fix a problem that stems from a bipartisan 1965 law that reworked America's immigration laws.

In 1924, during a period of opposition to immigration that fueled the second rise of the Ku Klux Klan, Congress had passed the nation's first comprehensive immigration law. That law, known as the Johnson-Reed Act, limited immigration according to quotas assigned to each country. Those quotas were heavily weighted toward western Europe, virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia and Africa and dramatically curtailing it from southern Europe.

The Johnson-Reed Act simply taxed workers coming to the U.S. from Mexico, because from the time the current border was set in 1848 until the 1930s, people moved back and forth across it. Laborers in particular came from Mexico to work for the huge American agribusinesses that dominate the agricultural sector, especially after 1907 when the Japanese workers who had been taking over those jobs were unofficially kept out of the country by the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement." Later, during World War I, the government encouraged immigration to help increase production.

The Depression, when the bottom fell out of the economy, coupled with the Dust Bowl, when the bottom fell out of the western plains, made destitute white Americans turn on Mexican migrants (as well as on their poor white neighbors, as John Steinbeck wrote about in The Grapes of Wrath). The government rounded up Mexicans and shipped them back over the border.

World War II created another shortage of laborers, and to regularize the system of migrant labor, the U.S. government in 1942 started a guest worker policy called the Bracero Program that ultimately brought more than 4 million Mexican workers to the U.S. The program was supposed to guarantee that migrant workers were well treated and adequately paid and housed. But it didn't work out that way. Employers hired illegal as well as legal workers and treated them poorly. American workers complained about competition.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower returned about a million illegal workers in 1954 under "Operation Wetback," only to have officials readmit most of them as braceros. Under pressure both from labor and from reformers who recognized that the system was exploitative at the same time that mechanization began replacing workers, President John F. Kennedy initiated the process that ended the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1965 the government tried to replace migrant labor with American high school students, but the "A-TEAM" project—"Athletes in Temporary Employment as Agricultural Manpower"—failed.

The end of the Bracero program coincided with congressional reworking of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. In the midst of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, Congress wanted to end the racial quota system of immigration and replace it with one that did not so obviously discriminate against Asia and Africa. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or the Hart-Celler Act. It opened immigration to all nations, setting a general cap on total immigration levels.

But southern congressmen, appalled at the idea of Black immigration, introduced a provision that privileged family migration, arguing that "family unification" should be the nation's top priority. They expected that old-stock immigrants from western Europe would use the provision to bring over their relatives, which would keep the effect of the 1924 law without the statute. But their provision had the opposite effect. It was new immigrants who wanted to bring their families, not old ones. So immigration began to skew heavily toward Asia and Latin America.

At the same time, Hart-Celler put a cap on immigrants from Mexico just as the guest worker program ended. The cap was low: 20,000, although 50,000 workers were coming annually at that point, and American agribusiness depended on migrant labor. Workers continued to come as they always had, and to be employed, as always. But now their presence was illegal.

In 1986, Congress tried to fix the problem of border security between the U.S. and Mexico by offering amnesty to 2.3 million Mexicans who were living in the United States and by cracking down on employers who hired undocumented workers. But rather than ending the problem of undocumented workers, the new law exacerbated it by beginning the process of guarding and militarizing the border. Until then, migrants into the United States had been offset by an equal number leaving at the end of the season. Once the border became heavily guarded, Mexican migrants refused to take the chance of leaving.

Since 1986, U.S. politicians have refused to deal with this disconnect, which grew in the 1990s when the North American Free Trade Agreement flooded Mexico with U.S. corn and drove Mexican farmers to find work, largely in the American Southeast. But by 2007, as Mexico's economy stabilized and after U.S. border enforcement tightened significantly under President Bill Clinton, more Mexican immigrants were leaving the U.S. than coming.

Between 2007 and 2017, the U.S. saw a net loss of about 2 million Mexican immigrants. In 2017 about 5 million undocumented Mexicans lived in the United States; most of them—83%—were long-term residents, here more than ten years. Only 8% had lived in the U.S. for less than five years. Increasingly, undocumented immigrants were people from around the world who overstayed legal visas, making up more than 40% of the country's undocumented population by 2024.

In 2013 the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform measure by a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. The measure provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased border security. It also proposed to increase visas for immigrant workers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the measure would reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion over 10 years and $700 billion over 20 years.

The measure had passed the Senate by a wide margin and was popular with the public. It was expected to pass the House. But then–House speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refused to bring the measure up before the chamber, saying it did not have the support of a majority of Republicans.

About that time, undocumented migration across the southern border was changing. By 2014, people were arriving at the U.S. border from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where violence that approached warfare—much of it caused by gangs whose members had been socialized into gang culture in the U.S.—and economic stress from that violence created refugees. These migrants were not coming over the border for economic opportunity; they were refugees applying for asylum—a legal process in the United States.

Before the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans highlighted the new migrants at the southern border, although immigration numbers remained relatively stable. They also highlighted the death from the Ebola virus of a Liberian visitor to the U.S. and the infection of two of his nurses. They attacked the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama for downplaying the danger of the disease to the U.S. public and suggested foreigners should be kept out of the U.S. (In fact, the only Americans who contracted the virus in the U.S. were the two nurses who treated the Liberian visitor.)

Despite his own history of using undocumented workers at his properties, Trump followed this practice of using immigration against the Democratic administration for political points, launching his presidential campaign in 2015 by claiming Mexico was sending "people that have lots of problems…. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He promised mass deportation and to build a wall across the southern border and make Mexico pay for it.

In fact, Trump's administration deported significantly fewer undocumented immigrants than Obama's had, at least in part because Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Obama focused on deporting those who had been convicted of crimes, a much easier deportation process than that for immigrants without convictions. But it was still legal to apply for asylum in the U.S., a fact MAGA Republicans opposed as they embraced the "Great Replacement" theory: the idea that immigration destroys a nation's culture and identity.

The covid pandemic enabled the Trump administration in March 2020 to close the border and turn back asylum seekers under an emergency health authority known as Title 42, which can be invoked to keep out illness. Title 42 overrode the right to request asylum. But it also took away the legal consequences for trying to cross the border illegally, meaning migrants tried repeatedly, driving up the numbers of border encounters between U.S. agents and migrants and increasing the number of successful attempts from about 10,000–15,000 per month to a peak of more than 85,000.

Title 42 was still in effect in January 2021, when President Joe Biden took office. Immediately, Biden sent an immigration bill to Congress to modernize and fund immigration processes, including border enforcement and immigration courts—which had backlogs of more than 1.6 million people whose cases took an average of five years to get decided—and provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

His request got nowhere as MAGA Republicans demanded the continuation of Title 42 as a

general immigration measure to keep out migrants and accused Biden of wanting "open borders." But Title 42 is an emergency public health authority, and when the administration declared the covid emergency over in May 2023, the rule no longer applied.

In the meantime, migrants had surged to the border, driven from their home countries or countries to which they had previously moved by the slow economic recoveries of those countries after the worst of the pandemic. The booming U.S. economy pulled them north. To move desperately needed migrants into the U.S. workforce, Biden extended temporary protected status to about 472,000 Venezuelans who were in the U.S. before July 31, 2023. The Biden administration also expanded temporary humanitarian admissions for people from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

Then, in October 2023, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) injected the idea of an immigration bill back into the political discussion when he tried to stop the passage of a national security measure that would provide aid to Ukraine. He said the House would not consider the Senate's measure unless it contained a border security package. Eager to pass a measure to aid Ukraine, the Senate took him at his word, and a bipartisan group of senators spent the next several months hammering out an immigration bill that was similar to Title 42.

The Senate passed the measure with a bipartisan vote, but under pressure from Trump, who wanted to preserve the issue of immigration for his 2024 campaign, Johnson declared it "dead on arrival" when it reached the House in February 2024. "Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill," Trump posted about the measure.

And then Trump hammered hard on the demonization of immigrants. He lied that Aurora, Colorado, was a "war zone" that had been taken over by Venezuelan gangs—Aurora's Republican mayor and police chief said this wasn't true—and that Haitian immigrants to Springfield, Ohio, were "eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They're eating—they are eating the pets of the people that live there." A Gallup poll released Friday shows the MAGA attacks on immigration worked: in 2024, 55% of American adults wanted fewer immigrants in the country.

Trump was reelected in part because of his promise to strengthen border security, but now his administration is using attacks on immigrants to impose a police state. As Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng reported Saturday in Rolling Stone, the administration is fighting to impose its will on wrongly-deported Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom it rendered to a terrorist prison in El Salvador, because if they are forced to back down, "it could set a precedent that opens the floodgates to other legal challenges" to Trump's other executive power grabs.

"The last thing you want to do here is contribute to a domino effect of decisions where suddenly you're admitting you're wrong about everything," a close Trump advisor told the reporters. "That is why you gotta stand your ground on everything against the left, including on the [Abrego Garcia] situation."

But it appears the American people simply want to fix a sixty-year-old mistake in the nation's immigration laws.





Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American heathercoxrichardson@substack.com 
Unsubscribe

Jul 14, 2025, 9:53 PM (8 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Trump appointees insist they have a "mandate" to drive undocumented immigrants out of the U.S. and prevent new immigrants from coming in, and are launching a massive increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and detention facilities to do so. But a poll released Friday shows that only 35% of American adults approve of Trump's handling of immigration, while 62% disapprove.

The poll shows a record 79% of adults saying immigration is good for the country, with only 17% seeing it as bad. Only 30% of American adults say immigration should be reduced.

The poll shows that 85% of American adults want laws to allow "immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Seventy-eight percent of American adults want the law to allow "immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Only 38% want the government to deport "all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country."

The poll shows Americans eager to fix a problem that stems from a bipartisan 1965 law that reworked America's immigration laws.

In 1924, during a period of opposition to immigration that fueled the second rise of the Ku Klux Klan, Congress had passed the nation's first comprehensive immigration law. That law, known as the Johnson-Reed Act, limited immigration according to quotas assigned to each country. Those quotas were heavily weighted toward western Europe, virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia and Africa and dramatically curtailing it from southern Europe.

The Johnson-Reed Act simply taxed workers coming to the U.S. from Mexico, because from the time the current border was set in 1848 until the 1930s, people moved back and forth across it. Laborers in particular came from Mexico to work for the huge American agribusinesses that dominate the agricultural sector, especially after 1907 when the Japanese workers who had been taking over those jobs were unofficially kept out of the country by the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement." Later, during World War I, the government encouraged immigration to help increase production.

The Depression, when the bottom fell out of the economy, coupled with the Dust Bowl, when the bottom fell out of the western plains, made destitute white Americans turn on Mexican migrants (as well as on their poor white neighbors, as John Steinbeck wrote about in The Grapes of Wrath). The government rounded up Mexicans and shipped them back over the border.

World War II created another shortage of laborers, and to regularize the system of migrant labor, the U.S. government in 1942 started a guest worker policy called the Bracero Program that ultimately brought more than 4 million Mexican workers to the U.S. The program was supposed to guarantee that migrant workers were well treated and adequately paid and housed. But it didn't work out that way. Employers hired illegal as well as legal workers and treated them poorly. American workers complained about competition.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower returned about a million illegal workers in 1954 under "Operation Wetback," only to have officials readmit most of them as braceros. Under pressure both from labor and from reformers who recognized that the system was exploitative at the same time that mechanization began replacing workers, President John F. Kennedy initiated the process that ended the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1965 the government tried to replace migrant labor with American high school students, but the "A-TEAM" project—"Athletes in Temporary Employment as Agricultural Manpower"—failed.

The end of the Bracero program coincided with congressional reworking of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. In the midst of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, Congress wanted to end the racial quota system of immigration and replace it with one that did not so obviously discriminate against Asia and Africa. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or the Hart-Celler Act. It opened immigration to all nations, setting a general cap on total immigration levels.

But southern congressmen, appalled at the idea of Black immigration, introduced a provision that privileged family migration, arguing that "family unification" should be the nation's top priority. They expected that old-stock immigrants from western Europe would use the provision to bring over their relatives, which would keep the effect of the 1924 law without the statute. But their provision had the opposite effect. It was new immigrants who wanted to bring their families, not old ones. So immigration began to skew heavily toward Asia and Latin America.

At the same time, Hart-Celler put a cap on immigrants from Mexico just as the guest worker program ended. The cap was low: 20,000, although 50,000 workers were coming annually at that point, and American agribusiness depended on migrant labor. Workers continued to come as they always had, and to be employed, as always. But now their presence was illegal.

In 1986, Congress tried to fix the problem of border security between the U.S. and Mexico by offering amnesty to 2.3 million Mexicans who were living in the United States and by cracking down on employers who hired undocumented workers. But rather than ending the problem of undocumented workers, the new law exacerbated it by beginning the process of guarding and militarizing the border. Until then, migrants into the United States had been offset by an equal number leaving at the end of the season. Once the border became heavily guarded, Mexican migrants refused to take the chance of leaving.

Since 1986, U.S. politicians have refused to deal with this disconnect, which grew in the 1990s when the North American Free Trade Agreement flooded Mexico with U.S. corn and drove Mexican farmers to find work, largely in the American Southeast. But by 2007, as Mexico's economy stabilized and after U.S. border enforcement tightened significantly under President Bill Clinton, more Mexican immigrants were leaving the U.S. than coming.

Between 2007 and 2017, the U.S. saw a net loss of about 2 million Mexican immigrants. In 2017 about 5 million undocumented Mexicans lived in the United States; most of them—83%—were long-term residents, here more than ten years. Only 8% had lived in the U.S. for less than five years. Increasingly, undocumented immigrants were people from around the world who overstayed legal visas, making up more than 40% of the country's undocumented population by 2024.

In 2013 the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform measure by a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. The measure provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased border security. It also proposed to increase visas for immigrant workers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the measure would reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion over 10 years and $700 billion over 20 years.

The measure had passed the Senate by a wide margin and was popular with the public. It was expected to pass the House. But then–House speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refused to bring the measure up before the chamber, saying it did not have the support of a majority of Republicans.

About that time, undocumented migration across the southern border was changing. By 2014, people were arriving at the U.S. border from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where violence that approached warfare—much of it caused by gangs whose members had been socialized into gang culture in the U.S.—and economic stress from that violence created refugees. These migrants were not coming over the border for economic opportunity; they were refugees applying for asylum—a legal process in the United States.

Before the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans highlighted the new migrants at the southern border, although immigration numbers remained relatively stable. They also highlighted the death from the Ebola virus of a Liberian visitor to the U.S. and the infection of two of his nurses. They attacked the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama for downplaying the danger of the disease to the U.S. public and suggested foreigners should be kept out of the U.S. (In fact, the only Americans who contracted the virus in the U.S. were the two nurses who treated the Liberian visitor.)

Despite his own history of using undocumented workers at his properties, Trump followed this practice of using immigration against the Democratic administration for political points, launching his presidential campaign in 2015 by claiming Mexico was sending "people that have lots of problems…. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He promised mass deportation and to build a wall across the southern border and make Mexico pay for it.

In fact, Trump's administration deported significantly fewer undocumented immigrants than Obama's had, at least in part because Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Obama focused on deporting those who had been convicted of crimes, a much easier deportation process than that for immigrants without convictions. But it was still legal to apply for asylum in the U.S., a fact MAGA Republicans opposed as they embraced the "Great Replacement" theory: the idea that immigration destroys a nation's culture and identity.

The covid pandemic enabled the Trump administration in March 2020 to close the border and turn back asylum seekers under an emergency health authority known as Title 42, which can be invoked to keep out illness. Title 42 overrode the right to request asylum. But it also took away the legal consequences for trying to cross the border illegally, meaning migrants tried repeatedly, driving up the numbers of border encounters between U.S. agents and migrants and increasing the number of successful attempts from about 10,000–15,000 per month to a peak of more than 85,000.

Title 42 was still in effect in January 2021, when President Joe Biden took office. Immediately, Biden sent an immigration bill to Congress to modernize and fund immigration processes, including border enforcement and immigration courts—which had backlogs of more than 1.6 million people whose cases took an average of five years to get decided—and provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

His request got nowhere as MAGA Republicans demanded the continuation of Title 42 as a

general immigration measure to keep out migrants and accused Biden of wanting "open borders." But Title 42 is an emergency public health authority, and when the administration declared the covid emergency over in May 2023, the rule no longer applied.

In the meantime, migrants had surged to the border, driven from their home countries or countries to which they had previously moved by the slow economic recoveries of those countries after the worst of the pandemic. The booming U.S. economy pulled them north. To move desperately needed migrants into the U.S. workforce, Biden extended temporary protected status to about 472,000 Venezuelans who were in the U.S. before July 31, 2023. The Biden administration also expanded temporary humanitarian admissions for people from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

Then, in October 2023, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) injected the idea of an immigration bill back into the political discussion when he tried to stop the passage of a national security measure that would provide aid to Ukraine. He said the House would not consider the Senate's measure unless it contained a border security package. Eager to pass a measure to aid Ukraine, the Senate took him at his word, and a bipartisan group of senators spent the next several months hammering out an immigration bill that was similar to Title 42.

The Senate passed the measure with a bipartisan vote, but under pressure from Trump, who wanted to preserve the issue of immigration for his 2024 campaign, Johnson declared it "dead on arrival" when it reached the House in February 2024. "Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill," Trump posted about the measure.

And then Trump hammered hard on the demonization of immigrants. He lied that Aurora, Colorado, was a "war zone" that had been taken over by Venezuelan gangs—Aurora's Republican mayor and police chief said this wasn't true—and that Haitian immigrants to Springfield, Ohio, were "eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They're eating—they are eating the pets of the people that live there." A Gallup poll released Friday shows the MAGA attacks on immigration worked: in 2024, 55% of American adults wanted fewer immigrants in the country.

Trump was reelected in part because of his promise to strengthen border security, but now his administration is using attacks on immigrants to impose a police state. As Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng reported Saturday in Rolling Stone, the administration is fighting to impose its will on wrongly-deported Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom it rendered to a terrorist prison in El Salvador, because if they are forced to back down, "it could set a precedent that opens the floodgates to other legal challenges" to Trump's other executive power grabs.

"The last thing you want to do here is contribute to a domino effect of decisions where suddenly you're admitting you're wrong about everything," a close Trump advisor told the reporters. "That is why you gotta stand your ground on everything against the left, including on the [Abrego Garcia] situation."

But it appears the American people simply want to fix a sixty-year-old mistake in the nation's immigration laws.

--
****
Juan Matute
The Harold Wilke House 
Claremont, California

Humpty Trumpty Shat on His Wall