EPILOGUE
DONALD TRUMP, who ran for president boasting of his tremendous skills as a negotiator, vowing that he would “drain the swamp” and manage the government just like a successful business, if elected, finished up his first year in the White House with a government shutdown. And the reason for the collapse was his trademark issue: immigration.
Leading up to the passage of the budget for the administration’s second fiscal year, President Trump proposed a deal: Congress would have to approve more money for US-Mexico border security and, in exchange, the government would continue to shield eight hundred thousand Dreamers protected by DACA from deportation. Millions of dollars for border control traded for ongoing stability in undocumented young people’s lives.
Immigration as an issue, which was the dominant theme in Trump’s campaign rhetoric and in large measure helped propel him to the presidency, continued to play a central role in the narrative of his administration’s first year. If his campaign was a jumble of isolationist, xenophobic slogans and promises—build a wall, renegotiate NAFTA, expel certain migrants—there has been a constant effort during his administration to keep people who come from what he described as “shithole countries” on the margins.
In office for less than one hundred days, Trump tried to impose a travel ban on citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries, known as the “Muslim ban.” Over the course of the next two hundred days, he announced that Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Salvadorans would not be renewed, and he threatened to withhold federal funds from cities that had declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for immigrants. And throughout the entire first year, he continuously threatened protections for Dreamers, his favorite bargaining chip. Governmental paralysis marking Trump’s first year in office followed the negativity of the congressional majority to approve additional funds for ICE and Border Control. Nevertheless, with most of his proposals related to immigration, Trump’s wishes have come up against the reality of a country where, in spite of its many flaws, the rule of law prevails.
The first year of the Trump administration tested the separation of powers in the United States like never before, and so far the country has passed the test. The “Muslim ban” was blocked by various federal judges, and Trump’s attempt to rescind DACA was also blocked temporarily by at least two courts. Federal funds destined for “sanctuary cities” have not been withheld, since Congress has not taken up any measure to cut them off. Congress has also put the brakes on plans to hire 15,000 additional ICE agents. And though Trump ordered four prototypes of designs for a border wall, there is no line item anywhere for a wall in the federal budget for his administration’s second year.
In spite of this, Trump’s rhetoric is powerful. Thousands of media outlets around the world allot ample space and time for covering and amplifying the harsh, crude, heartless expressions of this president, who has found in immigration the perfect distraction from his administration’s bigger problems, like the investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, the dizzying rate of White House staff turnover, and federal government jobs left long vacant. And although the budget does not allow for hiring more immigration judges, and because of that the number of deportations has not increased, the number of immigration arrests has gone up, stoking a growing feeling of terror among some immigrant communities.1
The stories told in this book are an example of how, in the face of this relentless attack, waged with words and media coverage more than actions, Mexican immigrants in the United States are able to organize, regroup, and continue building a life of opportunity and success for themselves and their families. During this administration’s first year, Odilia Romero participated in the Food Book Fair to talk about food-industry workers’ rights. Mafalda Gueta, now a green-card holder, was able to travel for the first time to Guadalajara, Mexico, her birthplace, to meet her parents’ family. Claudia Amaro was given a new court date for her political asylum case in 2021; in the meantime, she can remain in the country with her family. Jeanette Vizguerra had speaking engagements at several universities, where she talked about immigrants’ rights. Ana Elena Soto’s annual education conference for Latina families raised its attendance to seventeen from seven. Individually, and as a community, immigrants in the United States continue to resist and continue to write their own success stories.
As of this writing, there are still over two years to go in Donald Trump’s presidency—or at least the first term. But the 2018 midterm elections offer the perfect juncture for the pro-immigrant movement to become a political actor in the US and, in alliance with other activist movements, to force a change and bring into Congress representatives who are sensitive and empathetic to minority communities.
The Trump era has exposed more clearly than ever the vulnerability of migrants, and as a result, it has made the pro-immigrant movement more relevant. In order to make that relevance more effective, organizations working for the rights of immigrants must recalibrate the strategies they have created in the past and form new alliances that will help broaden the reach of their message.
As the youngest segment of the pro-immigrant movement, the Dreamers set a good example for older, more established organizations working on this issue. With a dialogue that extends beyond an immigration agenda, and thanks to a political maturity developed by trial and error, these young people have built national networks with ethnic, racial, and religious representation. They have created and nurtured intersections with other communities, like the LGBT community—giving rise to the term “undocuqueers”—or the undocumented black community—the “undocublack” movement—and sometimes joined with other mass protest movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. Although the great majority of Dreamers are Mexican, they have assumed their place in US society in a broader sense, transcending their status as immigrants. That is what differentiates Dreamers from the overall pro-immigrant movement, and it has worked to their advantage.
Over the past twenty years, the groups representing immigrants and driving the immigration agenda forward have gained a higher level of visibility in the media and a larger presence in Washington, DC. The Latino vote grew by almost 50 percent between 2004 and 2012, and voter election materials produced in languages other than English are now distributed in areas that encompass 68 million voters, or over 40 percent of eligible voters, but that has not been enough to enact any new measures that would grant immigrants legal status.2 The pro-immigrant movement has won some victories at the state and local level to block measures that amounted to persecution, but it has also suffered reversals, like the nonrenewal of the TPS program for immigrants from certain countries.
For Mexican immigrants, Trump is no longer the question mark he was a year ago. His first months in the White House demonstrated that not only are immigrants’ rights in peril in the United States; civil rights are also threatened. The most recent Human Rights Watch annual report concludes that while the current administration’s policies have affected refugees and immigrants, they have also resulted in an erosion of women’s rights, LGBT rights, freedom of expression, and accountability.3
Veterans of the pro-immigrant movement, who are mostly of Mexican and Central American origin, would be wise to follow the example set by the Dreamers, who have learned how to forge alliances with other sectors of society, sharing information and creating joint strategies. As a result, over 70 percent of US citizens now support some form of legalization for these young people. Formulating strategies to educate and enlighten communities who have not traditionally fought for immigrants’ rights, but who have the ability to lobby and exert political influence, could be a good start. By complementing those efforts with outreach to local networks that community leaders in some states have nurtured, the overall result could tip the balance in favor of the immigrant community. Organizing events in California, a Democratic-leaning, pro-immigrant state, could boost visibility, but it would not grow the political base. Sending a message to moderates who are willing to listen, in battleground districts where election results could produce a real change, is critical. We must ensure that immigrant voices, telling their stories of strength, triumph, and resistance, reach their ears. After all, that is the true spirit of the United States of America.