Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

No Place Like Home: Immigration Under Another Trump Presidency (w/ Dr. Maria Cristina Garcia)

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

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

Counterpoint Podcast

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Dr. Garcia:

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 up and deported. Oftentimes, american citizens were caught up in the dragnet too, because there weren't many attempts to check for citizenship. Families were affected, and so when he threatens to have another roundup, I think we should take him at his word. I think that this would happen Now. This will have dire consequences for the economy, because it will. When you remove millions of people who are responsible for the planting and harvesting of crops, for providing services and employment and construction and other industries, when you round them up and suddenly deport them, that will have consequences for the economy. It will raise prices on goods and services, certainly on the food that we eat.

Shawn:

Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig. So here we are the election's over and Donald Trump is now president-elect and preparing a return to the White House in January. Trump's first presidency and his stated policy goals give us a sense of what might be coming An end to the Affordable Care Act, a hollowing out of the federal civil service, more crackdowns on abortion access, potentially military intervention in some of our biggest cities and, related to today's topic, mass roundups and deportations of immigrants. Historically, the United States has been a sanctuary for those fleeing oppression, conflict and disaster. But the narrative around immigration, 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 claims about invasions at the southern border. Alarmist claims about invasions at the southern border. That messaging played into long-standing fears, weaponizing misinformation to paint immigrants as threats rather than contributors to American society. This disinformation strategy not only distorts public perception, but also undercuts efforts to pass reasonable and humane immigration policies. Trump himself in fact tanked a bipartisan effort to crack down on illegal immigration earlier this year, in a cynical attempt to keep the controversy and the crisis alive.

Shawn:

But the stakes are higher than just the politics of this election. The global landscape is shifting under dual pressures of authoritarian regimes and climate change. Countries like Venezuela and Myanmar drive their citizens to flee persecution and violence, and climate-induced disasters intensifying droughts, floods and food shortages force millions more to seek refuge across borders. These mass migrations are testing the resilience of democracies worldwide. These mass migrations are testing the resilience of democracies worldwide, including the United States, and with an authoritarian climate change denier about to take the presidency, this suggests dark days ahead.

Shawn:

Today's guest is Dr Maria Cristina Garcia, a professor in the Department of History at Cornell University, leading scholar on immigration and refugee policy and author of numerous books related to this policy, including State of Disaster the Failure of US Migration Policy in an Age of Climate Change. We discuss the state of American immigration and refugee policy, how disinformation has clouded the immigration debate, the impacts of forced migration on democracies and what a post-2024 America could look like in addressing these challenges. Also, if you're interested in what the United States and the world might experience under a second Trump presidency, you might want to check out the limited podcast series we produced and released over the summer After America. In that series, we took a look at how the GOP radicalized, how we got here the ways in which Trump influenced American politics and how his authoritarian tendencies could dramatically undermine democracy in the United States as well as global stability. I'll drop a link in the show notes.

Shawn:

All right, if you liked this episode or any episode, please give it a like, share and follow on your favorite podcast platform and or subscribe to the podcast on YouTube. And, as always, if you have any thoughts, questions or comments, please feel free to email me at deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom. Let's do a deep dive, dr Garcia. Thanks for being here. How are you?

Dr. Garcia:

I'm good. I hope you're well.

Shawn:

I am well. We are recording this one day before the election, so our conversation is going to be pretty apropos to the moment, and that conversation is about immigration, forced migration, what drives it, the impact it has on policy, particularly here in the United States. Immigration has played an intense role in our American politics for a while now. Rhetoric around immigration, demonization and disinformation about who comes and why they come, has contributed to a lot of the polarization and division that we're experiencing in the states, and a little of that rhetoric focuses on what drives immigration and how.

Shawn:

Our inability, or maybe our unwillingness, to discuss this in any meaningful way means that we probably won't be effectively addressing increased immigration into the country with any good policy in the near future. Like I said, we're recording this just the day before the election, so it's hard to say what shape immigration policy could take in the very near future, but it's probably safe to say that, regardless, under a Trump or Harris administration, it's going to be a hot issue. So I'm glad to have you here to talk to me about this. It's nice to be here, Thank you about it as voluntary, even when undertaken under duress. But there are drivers to this that maybe, ancillarily, people understand but don't really dig into or think too much about. So can you explain what forced migration is and what it looks like today, maybe some examples of where it's happening and then some of the things that influence it or make it manifest?

Dr. Garcia:

Forced migration is any movement of people that is involuntary, and it's existed throughout history. It's been prompted by conquest and colonization, by war and revolution, religious persecution and sectarian violence, but also environmental disruption and climate change. You know, I think we tend to see forced migration from areas that experience authoritarian regimes. So authoritarian regimes have played a role in driving migration, because these regimes are oppressive. They silence speech, they bar free association, they persecute dissidents, they punish their opponents or anyone who is transgressive in any way. It's all about control, and, in the worst case scenario, people are made to disappear in authoritarian regimes, and so, under these circumstances, you can understand that many people choose to move elsewhere. They migrate to avoid falling victim to the regime, to avoid a generalized climate of violence or simply to avoid getting caught up in the crossfire of warring factions, because authoritarian regimes always produce a backlash.

Dr. Garcia:

Now we're seeing more and more climate-driven migration. Historically, climate change has always forced migration. Sudden impact weather events like hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have displaced people from their homes and their livelihoods for millennia, but so, too, have longer-term conditions like drought, desertification, the salination of freshwater sources. You know it's part of the human story. The difference is that today there are 8 billion people on the planet, so climate change is accelerating much more rapidly, and the changes that once occurred over millennia are now occurring over decades, and so we can expect to see more climate-driven forced migration in the decades to come. And as natural resources diminish, the potential for conflict also increases, also contributing to migration, which is why the Pentagon has called climate change a threat multiplier to migration which is why the Pentagon has called climate change a threat multiplier.

Shawn:

So one of the things that's particularly interesting to me is the patterns that come out of forced migration specific to you know, if we think about things like authoritarianism and climate change, as you mentioned, I guess I'm wondering, before we dig into the impacts of this, have you been able to discern any particular patterns as it relates to where people are coming from, where they're going and have some idea of what that's going to look like or the shape that's going to take in the coming decades?

Dr. Garcia:

Well, every nation on the planet is experiencing climate change. You know there's no way to counter that, but right now there are certain areas of certainly in our hemisphere that are on the front lines of climate change and the small island states, for example, are an obvious area that is impacted by climate change because of eroding coastlines. You know, in the case of some islands in the Caribbean, for example, that have experienced volcanic eruptions and other kind of driver of migration, livelihoods have disappeared, people have been forced to move to other islands or to other countries in the hemisphere. So the small island states in the Caribbean, but also in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, they are on the front lines of climate change. Pacific and Indian Oceans they are on the front lines of climate change.

Dr. Garcia:

But, here in our hemisphere, central America is. You know, some people consider it the epicenter of climate change, because Central America, this kind of very thin isthmus, is affected by hurricanes on both coasts, you know, on the Caribbean Sea and on the Pacific Ocean. They are also prone to drought, they experience volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. So lives and livelihoods are affected on a regular basis, making it really hard to recover from from these climate impacts. And then you add to this that these are countries that are still recovering from war, from the wars of the 1980s. They are countries that experience political and criminal violence. You know it just, it's altogether, it's a recipe for out-migration.

Shawn:

We're seeing this in Europe, as we are in the United States, which is increased migration, increased immigration. In the past decade and a half, it's increased exponentially, and one of the implications for democracies in these countries is absent good policy. What this has created or generated is bad blood and demonization of immigrants in such a way that it's actually producing authoritarian tendencies within the populace. That's then manifesting at the elite level, and you know, I think we're seeing that in the United States as well. So, to me, absent good policy that seems to be one of the implications for democratic nations is that bad policy related to immigration, coupled with negative and demonizing rhetoric, actually erodes democracy, and so I'm wondering what other implications you see? How does that affect democracies of democratic nations?

Dr. Garcia:

Well, yes, you're absolutely right. I think the arrival of large numbers of migrants in a short period of time can cause all kinds of pressures on a host society. It can have a destabilizing effect because migrants put pressure on public services In the short term. Migrants require assistance. They require healthcare, housing, jobs, education, and this can generate resentment from the host population and, if not addressed, that resentment can create a populist backlash that can topple a local state or national government.

Dr. Garcia:

Immigrants are often perceived to be threats to one's livelihood, to the economy, to a nation's cultural identity, to national security, and that can lead to political polarization, anti-immigrant sentiment, discrimination, segregation, even anti-immigrant violence. But that doesn't have to be the end game. If migration is managed well, immigrants can contribute to the economic revitalization of an area where everyone can win. Many refugees in the United States, for example, have high rates of entrepreneurship and workforce participation that have helped revitalize cities that were once in economic and population decline. We see this most specifically in my home state of New York, where places like Rochester and Utica and Syracuse have experienced a revitalization in part because of the influx of refugees and other immigrant groups that have had high workforce participation and entrepreneurship.

Shawn:

So there's a history and research around this history of how authoritarian regimes actually exploit migration as a political tool. You know, if I think about Venezuela, it doesn't make sense to me that authoritarians would want to create an environment in which people are forced to leave because, at the end of the day, they're hollowing out a country that they ostensibly intend to lead. So what is the political end to a means such as forced migration?

Dr. Garcia:

Authoritarian regimes exploit migration in multiple ways, you know. The most obvious way is to export dissent.

Dr. Garcia:

When social pressure builds within a society, authoritarian regimes often encourage the disaffected and the dissident to leave, and in so doing they undercut international arguments that they are repressive because, you know, after all, they're allowing people to migrate. But ultimately it's all about control. Migration in this context is about maintaining their authority. They want to export the troublemakers. For authoritarian regimes, migration can also be a form of population control. They can force undesirable populations to leave, either by making life really really difficult for them or by forcing them to leave at gunpoint. If they don't like an ethno-racial minority or religious group, for example, they can force those populations to leave. But authoritarians also regimes also, you know are using migration strategically in other strategic ways. So they realize that migration can be used to generate wealth, because they know that migrants send remittances and consumer goods back home to their families and communities in the billions of dollars each year, and this too helps to keep the population pacified and ultimately helps to keep authoritarian regimes in power.

Dr. Garcia:

Other ways that authoritarian regimes might also use migration is as a weapon. They can weaponize migration to create problems for a neighboring country in order to destabilize it. But the most common way that authoritarian regimes use migration is as a scapegoat. It takes the heat off of them. You know, immigrants are easy targets, especially if they are perceived to be competing for jobs or perceived to be receiving more benefits than the general population has access to, and so governments oftentimes encourage these resentments and deliberately pin populations against each other. Because it takes the heat off of them and, once again, it helps to maintain their authority.

Shawn:

So you touched on this a little bit, but I guess this seems relatively obvious, and maybe it is. What is the impact that authoritarian regimes, or what do we know about the impact of migration on neighboring regimes or regions? What is the impact that this has on stability in regions and neighboring countries?

Dr. Garcia:

You know it can have a destabilizing effect.

Dr. Garcia:

As you have pointed out, if an authoritarian regime is actively encouraging migration to export dissent or to weaponize it in some way to destabilize an enemy, that migration has a destabilizing effect on the countries that border these authoritarian regimes and ultimately that leads to more tension, escalates tension in the region that can, in the worst case scenario, lead to conflict, to war, to violence.

Dr. Garcia:

That then produces even more migration, out-migration, and then, you know, the migration goes further out. So we saw this, for example, during the wars in Central America, where at first, when people were displaced from their homes because of the generalized climate of violence or because they were caught in the crossfire, they moved internally within their own countries, and then they started moving to other countries within Central America. So Nicaraguans settled in Costa Rica in very large numbers, for example, but with every passing year the radius expanded. People moved into Mexico, they moved further north into the United States and towards Canada. So the number of countries that were directly affected by the wars in Central America and by the migration produced by these wars increased with every passing year.

Shawn:

Specific to immigration and migration in Central and, I guess, northern South America. Are there any countries that are managing that immigration or the influx of immigrants well and have good immigration policy? Or are you concerned kind of across the board?

Dr. Garcia:

No, I think. Since the wars in Central America, there's been an effort by the nations of the region to come together periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern, and migration is one of those issues of mutual concern. So one of the first attempts to address migration, for example, was the Cartagena Declaration, where the nations first of all defined for what a refugee was and you know it was a non-binding declaration, but it was at least a recognition that there were many reasons why people migrate and that the nations of the region had a particular obligation to provide either temporary or permanent refuge to people who were displaced. And so, since then, the nations of the region have met periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern. The most recent attempt was during the Biden administration, when the Biden administration tried to address the root causes of migration from the Americas, and this led to the Los Angeles Declaration of 2022, where 22 nations agreed to work together to create more job opportunities that would help keep people home. They secured commitments from corporations to invest more money in infrastructure or to create more jobs in the region, for example. They were especially concerned about Central America.

Dr. Garcia:

There has been an attempt to also discuss ways to develop climate resiliency so that people can exercise that basic human right to stay home, because we realize that moving forward, that climate change is a reality. We're not meeting the targets of the Paris Agreement and even if we did, climate change is a fast moving train and it will take decades before we see the full effects of addressing, of meeting those climate commitments. And so in the meantime we need to help populations adapt to the realities of climate change in their agricultural production, in their housing, in their infrastructure, so they can exercise that basic human right to stay home and that becomes a way of addressing migration. But then there will always be populations who cannot adapt to the realities of climate change of the region need to work together to manage migration, to create resettlement programs that share the burden equitably, because there will be populations that, through no fault of their own, will have to migrate.

Shawn:

So, before we get into this specific moment or political moment in the United States, I guess I would like a little bit of help understanding history as it relates to the US policies related to forced migrants. So could you help me understand if the United States has done a good job historically of addressing the needs of forced migrants and immigration into the country and if so, what does it look like? And if not, why not?

Dr. Garcia:

The short answer is yes and no. Yes, the United States has accommodated millions of people from around the globe over the course of its history, but also, you know, running parallel to that very that history of generosity is also a history of hostility.

Dr. Garcia:

And this hostility towards immigrant has also been part of the US story. So we celebrate our immigrant heritage through parades and folklife festivals and we call ourselves a nation of immigrants, which is a very problematic framing because of course it obscures the experience of people who were not immigrants, people who became American through conquest or through enslavement. But anyway, we do celebrate that immigrant heritage and we call ourselves a nation of immigrants. But alongside that sentiment are calls for greater and greater restrictions on immigration, and that's been true throughout our history. All you have to do is read Benjamin Franklin's writings on the Germans of Pennsylvania, for example, or take a look at some of the anti-Irish political cartoons created by Thomas Nast to see that hostility or that fear and suspicion of immigrants has also been part of the American story. When the federal government assumed responsibility for immigration control in the late 19th century, for immigration control in the late 19th century, one of the first groups they targeted for exclusion were the Chinese, and with every passing decade Congress barred more and more people they considered undesirable, or whoever they considered undesirable at a particular moment. So at some points it was the impoverished that they wanted to bar the illiterate, asians, southern and Eastern Europeans, mormons, homosexuals and indeed some of the most draconian immigration laws were passed between 1917 and 1924. So today's immigration laws and policies are part of this longer legal tradition. Now, having said that, since the 1980s, we've seen a greater emphasis on controlling unauthorized migration. More and more money is being spent on technologies and on manpower to track, detain and expel unauthorized immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security, where most of our immigration services are located, is now the largest federal office in American history, and we're also seeing the rise of immigration detention centers that are privatized and run by a multi-billion dollar corporation. So that is new. That's a new development in our history.

Dr. Garcia:

What makes this particular moment different and dangerous, though, is the speed through which rumor and disinformation and vitriol spread on social media, and how that you know.

Dr. Garcia:

Because of the speed of that miscommunication, it increases the likelihood of violence.

Dr. Garcia:

So the most obvious example is you know, the lies that circulated this past fall about the Haitians of Springfield, ohio, and the consequences that that had not only for Haitians, but also for people who lived in the broader community.

Dr. Garcia:

What has become clear, to me at least, is that, at this present moment, most Americans don't know how the immigration system works. You know, all you have to do is look at some of the posts on social media about immigration, and it's clear that students, that Americans, never study this in grade school or in high school. It's not part of their civic history 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 asylum system. So, yes, it's true that today we have more asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry than ever before, and this has been true actually, since the 1980s. Since the 1980s, we've seen a growing number of asylum seekers, but most of these asylum seekers will never have a chance to make a case for themselves in an asylum court because they won't pass the initial credible fear interview and they will be removed through a process known as expedited removal.

Dr. Garcia:

And they will be removed through a process known as expedited removal. Even those who do pass this initial scrutiny, the credible fear test, and even those who are allowed to enter to receive an asylum hearing within two to three years, even they will face enormous obstacles. Today, roughly 20% of asylum seekers are successful. So this perception on social media that's circulating that everybody who is being allowed into the country will get to stay here permanently is just not true. It's just that we have an international and a domestic obligation to grant people who have passed that credible fear test the right to make a case for themselves in an asylum court. It doesn't mean that they will receive asylum as I said, about 20% of asylum seekers are successful but they do have a right to make a case for themselves if they pass that initial credible fear interview. But you know, as I said, most people it's become clear just from reading social media that most Americans really don't have a sense of how the asylum system works or the immigration system as a whole.

Shawn:

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 of immigration has become to people that I'm not quite sure are particularly impacted one way or the other by it. Because I don't live on a land border, and particularly the southern land border, I don't have a sense of how tangibly real this problem or issue is, and so, to get at the heart of it is the I don't like putting it in these terms, but is the problem associated with immigration 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:

Well, it's both and actually the situation that you described is not altogether new. I mean, when you look at the arc of immigration history, oftentimes the most heated opposition to immigration within the United States came from areas that didn't really experience much immigration, and that's where you see, as you say, the impact of leadership or the absence of leadership in helping to explain a particular problem. But are Americans wrong to be concerned? No, not necessarily. I mean there are growing numbers of people coming to the border to seek entry. Some are trying to enter without authorization. This has been true, you know, for a very long period of time and, yes, there are a growing number of asylum seekers, but there are also checks in place that prevent a lot of people from entering.

Dr. Garcia:

You know, it's easy to think that our borders are porous when you see these images in the newspapers of migrant caravans or people kind of sneaking through vulnerable areas of fencing entering the United States. But there are also so many checks in place that prevent that from happening as well. As I said earlier, I mean our immigration services within the Department of Homeland Security are now among the most funded and there are bills currently in Congress that are on hold that would expand the immigration bureaucracy even further and increase the technology and the manpower even more. So there are a number of legal and technological and manpower checks in place to prevent our borders from being too porous. Now, you know, a lot of it is disinformation. I think you're right.

Dr. Garcia:

I think that many politicians have used migration as part of their culture wars, you know this is one of the ways that they've been able to either get themselves elected or to stay in office is by stoking, you know, anger and fear and resentment, and, you know, kind of focusing on the culture wars. You know there's a lot of language about how we are under siege, that the white population is in decline, that you know that there are all these kind of discourses that are circulating, which are not new, by the way. I mean, again, you see them all throughout American history, but they have particular salience at particular moments in time, and I think some politicians have been quite masterful at exploiting them right. And then, when you add to that social media and the lack of checks on social media and the ease with which disinformation travels Springfield, for example, as just one of many examples it's a recipe for disaster and people get quite worked up about it, but at the same time, I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful, yes, disinformation can undermine humanitarian policies. So I study refugees and asylum seekers in particular, and this is an aspect of immigration policy that is very important to me, especially as someone who is a refugee herself. You know my family benefited from American generosity in the 1960s, when we were allowed to immigrate from Cuba, and so I would like to see that humanitarian tradition continue in the United States and I'm hopeful that it will. And you know I am worried that disinformation can undermine these humanitarian policies.

Dr. Garcia:

But sometimes what you need is just leadership and the will to open the door policy. In this country, for example, you see how the executive branch or members of Congress often created tracks for admission because they felt it was the right thing to do, even though the public opinion polls were showing them that Americans were ambivalent or even outright opposed to a group of people. We saw this during the Cold War with American generosity towards Hungarians and Cubans and Southeast Asians who were admitted to the United States in very large numbers. And in recent years the Biden administration has granted entry to Ukrainians and to the Afghan allies, again because of a sense of obligation. But they also exercised the political will to do so, despite what the public opinion polls were telling them.

Dr. Garcia:

And at other times, you know, when you study the arc of US immigration history, you also see how advocacy has helped to pry open the door to the United States. You know advocacy from non-governmental organizations and from faith-based communities who put pressure on an administration that was hostile to immigration. So the classic case from the recent past is again the Central Americans of the 1980s. We saw how American opposition to the American presence in Central America and American support for Salvadorans and other Central Americans, how this eventually forced Congress to create tracks for admission for these populations. So I'm hopeful that Americans will continue to grant admission to vulnerable populations.

Dr. Garcia:

But you know, having said that, it's also really important to recognize that, despite American generosity over the generations American generosity over the generations and yes, we have admitted so many immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers over the course of the generations but it's also important to recognize that the top 10 resettlement nations combined, including the United States, today accommodate less than 1% of the world's refugees. It's usually the nations that border areas of crisis that accommodate the greatest number of refugees. So, despite our humanitarian tradition, when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, the need is just so large and the number of refugees who have been accommodated are just a drop in the bucket.

Shawn:

The two political parties in the United States have become so divergent on immigration policy in the last handful of years in a way that you know just didn't exist prior. So, like I think in 2000 with Bush versus Gore, you know the two candidates had some differences on their immigration policy, but it wasn't a you know, a yawning chasm, and same in 2008, although we were beginning to see the stirrings of that, But't a you know, a yawning chasm, and same in 2008, although we were beginning to see the stirrings of that. But ever since, you know, I suppose about 2016, we can't ignore the elephant in the room.

Shawn:

Trump's rhetoric related to immigration and his as much as you could package policy on immigration has really widened the gap between Democratic and Republican policy.

Shawn:

And that's not to say that Democrats have great policy on immigration and Republicans don't. But one of the things that you often hear is, at the end of the day, a lot of this is just posturing, and especially in an election year. In 2004, Bush did this with same-sex marriage. It was a big flare up during the election year and then it just kind of calmed down. But immigration I've heard this as well as a mitigating kind of consideration, which is this is an election year, so there's just a lot of rhetoric around immigration, but if they, after the election, this eventually, you know, just kind of calmed down, it won't be as bad as Trump makes it seem like it will under him. But we do have two candidates, Trump and Harris, that are giving us very different visions for what immigration and migration policy could look like in the future. Do you see this as similar to previous election kind of rhetoric around this issue, or do you see this as something different?

Dr. Garcia:

No, it's different. It's different. First, I would want to challenge the perception that the Democrats are open border, because they're not. I mean, when you look at for example, removal and deportation rates.

Dr. Garcia:

Under Democratic administrations they are as high, or even higher, than you know, during Republican administrations, the Biden administration, for example. Well, initially the courts prevented him from lifting the migrant protection protocols in Title 42. But eventually, when those were phased out, other checks were put in place, the CBP1 app, for example, which has made it really, really hard for asylum seekers to even access the asylum system in the United States. So he has implemented certain checks to try to discourage people from coming to the United States. So he has implemented certain checks to try to discourage people from coming to the United States. So I want to challenge the perception that the Democrats have an open border policy, because that has never been true. Now, having said that, the Republican policy under Trump is just so, so different, and we saw what he could do. During his first administration, Refugee admissions were at an all-time low. For example, you know, when the Refugee Act was passed in 1980, it set a minimum quota of 50,000 per year. In 1980, it set a minimum quota of 50,000 per year, and most administrations have admitted between 100,000 and 125,000 refugees per year. But towards the tail end of his administration the quota had been set at 15,000, and even then the quota wasn't met. So it was the lowest admission rates for refugees ever since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act. But then there were other immigration policies that were put into place that were so worrisome, you know, the so-called Muslim ban, which was challenged in the courts and was ultimately implemented once they added other countries into the ban, like Venezuela. The attempts to eradicate temporary protected status, TPS, which again was held up in the courts. So there were checks in place during the first administration that prevented the most draconian policies from being fully implemented. But I'm not so sure those checks will be in place should he be elected for a second time.

Dr. Garcia:

And so he has promised, you know, a roundup, detention and deportation of the entire unauthorized population in the United States, and I think we should take him at his word. This has happened before. You know, in the 1930s and the 1950s, undocumented residents of the United States were rounded up and deported. Oftentimes American citizens were caught up in the dragnet too, because there weren't very, you know, many, many attempts to check for citizenship. Families were affected, and so when he threatens to have another roundup, I think we should take him at his word.

Dr. Garcia:

I think that this would happen Now. This will have dire consequences for the economy because it will. When you remove millions of people who are responsible for the planting and harvesting of crops, for providing services and employment and construction and other industries, when you round them up and suddenly deport them, that will have consequences for the economy. It will raise prices on goods and services, certainly on the food that we eat, but it will have an impact on families. You know the Republicans have always prided themselves on through the payment of sales taxes and local and property and federal taxes and have provided so much to our country through their labor. That will affect so many families because there are so many Americans who live in mixed status families and so it will be consequential for many, many people. I think we will all be affected in some way because of his policies.

Shawn:

How does deportation work? We talk about the impact it might have on the economy. Talk about the impact it would have on people. Here, Do we know typically what happens to people when they're deported and sent back?

Dr. Garcia:

Not really. I mean, once people are removed from the United States, we don't know what happens to them, and that's particularly worrisome when young people are removed from the United States, for example. We don't keep track of what happens to them, how people try to rebuild their lives when they are removed. Some may attempt to reenter the United States and that will have legal consequences for them if they attempt to reenter after they have been formally deported.

Dr. Garcia:

But there are many ways that people are removed from the United States that don't necessarily entail deportation and there's a wonderful book written by my colleague, adam Goodman, called the Deportation Machine, where he looks at the history of forced removal and the ways that people were either convinced to leave the United States through a campaign of violence or hostility, or were forcibly removed, where they agreed to remove themselves, either legally, you know, or just left the United States of their own volition.

Dr. Garcia:

But then you have to wonder how free that choice was. If there was a campaign of intimidation and violence against you that convinced you that it was time to pack up and go, so you? So I think we can expect to see some of that. If Trump is elected tomorrow, I think we can expect to see the state engage in an active campaign of rounding up and removing people from the United States. But I think also there will be a climate of fear and intimidation and violence that will convince many people to say, hey, you know, it's not worth it. I'm going to return to my country of origin. I think that that's a decision that might be easier. Most people will try to stay until until the state comes knocking on their door.

Shawn:

All signs, all polling signs, seem to suggest that, you know, trump is doing better with the Hispanic vote than he did in 2016 and 2020. And Harris is doing worse than Democrats have in the past. After the election we'll see how that is all borne out, but given Trump's policies specific to Latin America, immigration from Latin America and his professed policies, what do you think is happening here? I tend to think there might be a gendered component to this, but I'm not sure.

Dr. Garcia:

Yeah, that's a great question. I think many of us are trying to understand it. You know, some decades ago those Latinos who voted Republican tended to come from leftist authoritarian regimes who were very angry towards communism and they felt that the Republican Party was stronger against communism, towards checking communism. And so during the 1980s, for example, cubans and Nicaraguans and others who had fled left-wing regimes were quite impressed by Reagan and his tough stance towards communism. But since then, in more recent decades, we've seen some really interesting realignments and reasons for voting Republican.

Dr. Garcia:

You know, for many Latinos who are Catholic or evangelical Christian, for them abortion is a very important issue. In many cases it's a one issue identification. This is the one issue that they care the most about, and so they are. They will vote Republican because they feel that the Republican Party is anti-abortion, is more pro-family, is more traditional family values, and so they will. They feel more comfortable in the Republican camp. For others, you know, believe it or not, you know this this kind of legal posturing that that they see in Trump, they don't find it alienating necessarily, especially if they're first generation immigrants. They might be coming from countries where they're familiar with that style of politics, that bravado right.

Dr. Garcia:

And they don't find it as alienating as, say, a third or fourth generation Latino who is more thoroughly assimilated into life in the United States. So there are many, many different reasons why Latinos might vote Republican, why Latinos might vote Republican. And you're right, we're seeing, you know, anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of Latinos today identify as Republican and are voting Republican, although you see a higher percentage rate among some populations more than others. Right. But you know, I think it's important to underscore that the Latino population is quite diverse, and that's 65 million people from you know, over 20 different nations with very different experiences and motivations 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 have such a large and diverse population, it's going to be impossible to find one political issue or one political one politician who is going to appeal to such a large and diverse population.

Shawn:

We're experiencing democratic backsliding in what would what would have been characterized as very stable democracies in past. You know we're seeing that in European countries, to some extent in the United States as well, and we're seeing a rise of authoritarianism in other places. And this is fluid. Democracies wax and wane, same with authoritarian regimes. But what maybe feels a little different is that it's happening to great powers in a way that feels destabilizing.

Shawn:

We're seeing some significant democratic backsliding in the United States. We're seeing Russia being much more aggressive on the world stage, China's more assertive. One thing that this does is that portends the idea that there probably will be more migration related to the rise of authoritarianism around the world. But the other is, you know, to maintain stability in the world, but to specific regions, you really need countries to cooperate around issues like immigration and migration, Otherwise it can unspool right and it can become very destabilizing globally. Given the context of, you know, these rising powers, authoritarian powers and kind of a waning of democracy globally, it feels a little, I don't want to say hopeless, but it feels existential to some degree.

Dr. Garcia:

I understand why you feel that way. I think authoritarian governments can undermine international cooperation and I think, now more than ever, you know we need to cooperate. The lack of cooperation is particularly worrisome in an age of accelerated climate change. I think, now more than ever, nations need to work together to help populations most at risk adapt to the realities of climate change. We need to work together to manage migration for those who can adapt. We need to work together to address the reasons why climate change is accelerating in the first place. So, yes, at this particular moment, when scientists are telling us that we are fast approaching the point of no return, you know we need to have international cooperation.

Dr. Garcia:

But one of the arguments that I hear over and over again is from Americans is well, why should we abide by the Paris agreement? Why should we contort ourselves to try to reach these goals If China is not cooperating, or Russia or whatever? Fill in the blank? But if we're going to wait until we have a hundred percent cooperation, it's just not going to happen, I think.

Dr. Garcia:

I think those countries, democracies, the wealthier nations, have a particular obligation to take the lead on this, and especially when you consider that the countries that are currently on the front lines of climate change are countries that are former colonies, whose wealth was extracted for the benefit of wealthier nations.

Dr. Garcia:

Today, they are some of the poorest and most indebted nations on the planet, and so I think the wealthier nations, democratic nations, have a particular obligation to these countries, these lesser developed countries, many of which have authoritarian governments, because they're on the front lines and, in the interest of justice, I think we have an obligation to help, to assist and, through leadership, we need to work together to address climate change, but climate change is one of many, many issues that we need to secure international cooperation on, but certainly for me, I think it's one of the most important ones. For me, I think it's one of the most important ones, and I hope my concern about the upcoming election here in the United States is that we will forget about climate change should Trump be elected. For example, I mean, one administration considers, or one political candidate, one campaign considers, climate change to be a hoax. Another one acknowledges that it's real and that we need to work with other nations to address its impact. So I think this election could not be more consequential for the United States, but also for the world.

Shawn:

This touches on something that I've been thinking about related to policy generally, I suppose, but you know, in the context of our conversation immigration policy and migrant policy it's not that policies can remain static. It has to evolve to meet the day, to meet the moment. As you've talked about, climate change is increasingly an issue. We're seeing authoritarianism sprouting in different regions in the world in ways that you know didn't exist just 10 years ago. That has an implication for immigration and migrant policy. It's not just that our policy is remaining the same or has remained the same or would remain the same. It's that it's regressing and we need it to actually be progressing right. I guess I'm wondering what you think good policy could or should look like or how it should be addressing some of these issues.

Dr. Garcia:

Well, good policy constantly needs to adapt to the realities of the world around us. Let me give you refugee policy is just one example. So our definition of refugee is very precise and it's modeled after the UN definition of refugee, which identifies a refugee as a person with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. So nowhere in that definition do you see any reference to gender, sexuality, climate change there are many ways that populations become vulnerable and, unfortunately, the law doesn't always keep track with vulnerability and the ways that people become vulnerable, right? So I think it becomes imperative for the United States and other nations to, if they don't want to change existing law, at least to create complementary tracks for admission. So if you don't want to tweak the refugee definition to include climate change, for example, then we need to consider creating a complementary track that provides for both temporary and permanent residents to people who have been displaced by the environment or by accelerating climate change. Likewise, there have to be guidelines to provide accommodation to people who are experiencing violence on account of gender and sexuality. So we need to be adaptive.

Dr. Garcia:

I think our immigration system, our immigration law, has been produced ad hoc in response to particular concerns. Ad hoc and response to particular concerns. So, for example, during World War II and during the Cold War, we adapted immigration policy. We changed it to accommodate populations that were of concern, people that we needed to accommodate because of our foreign policy interests or because of humanitarian concerns. It was deemed in the national interest. Likewise, in the post-Cold War period, we also adapted immigration policy also to respond to particular domestic concerns about national security and terrorism, and so we adjusted our immigration policy. And so we need to continue to be adaptive. We need to examine both how to serve our domestic interests in terms of labor, but we also need to recognize that we have particular humanitarian obligations as a world leader to also accommodate vulnerable populations, and vulnerability changes across the generations. And we need to continue to kind of see where the need is and create opportunities for vulnerable populations to seek refuge in the United States.

Shawn:

Okay, final question. You ready for it? Sure, what's something interesting you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately?

Dr. Garcia:

you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately.

Dr. Garcia:

Well, I've been spending a lot of time in nature recently just to keep my sanity, I think you know, at the end of the day, after a day in class, after you know, trying to stay on top of everything that's happening in international fairs and on the domestic front, I need time to revitalize, to decompress, and so I'm spending a lot of time in nature. Fortunately, ithaca, new York, is a beautiful place to do that. There are wonderful hiking trails and waterfalls and it's a beautiful place. So I'm very fortunate to live here. So that's what I've been doing, s. What about?

Shawn:

you. Funny enough, I also have been feeling very anxious about the state of the world. Some people, I think, would call it hysteria. I don't think so. I think it's probably very practical. But what I've been doing is I've been doing a lot of reading about past conflicts. I think the reason is because they're behind us and I'm trying to find sites like it's a little bit of like a security blanket in that you know, the world has gone through some pretty horrible things and the world is going through some pretty horrible things, but all things come to an end and let's just hope it's for better and not for worse.

Dr. Garcia:

I guess horrible things, but all things come to an end and let's just hope it's for better and not for worse. I guess yes, and historically and in the current moment, there are so many people of goodwill and they are the. They are who. They give me hope.

Shawn:

I've been really thinking about. I don't know how the news, how this works, because the news really taps into, I would almost say like negative or salacious emotions in us and I've been wondering what the world would look like if the news ran with you know, a puppy was adopted today more often than you know something horrible.

Dr. Garcia:

Well, you're not off the mark, sean, I think, on social media. I think some of those Facebook pages, for example on puppies and kittens, are attracting quite a bit of attention these days.

Shawn:

That is true, dr Garcia. Thank you for stopping by and having the conversation and, if you haven't, don't forget to vote.

Dr. Garcia:

Oh, I already voted. Thank you, and thank you so much for inviting me, s. I appreciate it.

Shawn:

It's clear that we're standing on the edge of a new chapter in American history, one that could bring profound changes to our immigration policies, our democratic norms and our role on the world stage. The stakes have never been higher, especially for millions of immigrants and refugees who look to the United States as a beacon of hope, only to find a nation grappling with its own democratic identity and moral direction. As Dr Garcia highlighted, we're not just talking about policy debates here. We're talking about human lives, families and communities that are already vulnerable and will likely face even greater hardships in the coming years. Disinformation, fear-mongering and political maneuvering have clouded our understanding of immigration, painting it as a crisis to be combated rather than what it is a humanitarian challenge to be met with compassion and thoughtful solutions.

Shawn:

This isn't just a political issue. It's a moral one. It's about who we want to be as a country and how we respond to the pressing realities of a changing world. So why should you care? Because the consequences of a second Trump presidency won't be confined to political circles or policy debates. They'll impact the very heart of our society, the strength of our democracy, the stability of our economy and the lives of millions. It is upon each of us. Now it's up to all of us to sift through the noise, challenge, the disinformation and demand policies that reflect the true values of this country, values that once made the United States a sanctuary for the oppressed. All right, check back next week for another episode of Deep Dive Chat soon, folks. Thank you, thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host