I understand this and struggle with it myself. My reaction to your very brilliant piece was gratitude and excitement at the way this helps us see the arc of African American history and its impact on all of us. We badly need this reckoning. Thank you.
At the same time, I found myself wondering when we will have the same reckoning and begin to understand the Hispanic presence in this country over 500+ years. Marie Arana's piece in the Post last week was a milestone, and I wish everyone would read it too.
Why on earth do some of us believe that having one of these conversations erases the others? While it is true that a lot of America is incapable of focusing on more than one marginalized community at a time - if they focus at all - we must not fall into that trap.
I need to know Black history. I need to know indigenous history. I need to be part of telling my own community's history - we need all of it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK. I have stopped crying long enough to read the #DACA decision and begin to digest what it means. A thread:
First thing's first: it's a HUGE day for immigrants, for DREAMers, for DACA recipients and the millions of people who are their families, coworkers and communities.
It is also a great day for rest of the country, which benefits enormously from DACA because of the people who are able to work, teach, study, and serve on the front lines of responding to this pandemic. 29,000 of the latter, btw.
It is also a huge day for folks who might still benefit from the original 2012 version of DACA - the court basically reopened the possibility of relief for those who age in and become eligible. That's a big deal.
Sigh.
Have fought many battles over the public charge rules over the years. Here's a thread on what frequently gets lost in the argument: 1) immigrants tend to use fewer benefits then natives of the U.S. So there's no actual problem here needing to be solved.
2) But they're not immortal or immune to hardship 3) this rule penalizes potential immigrants if their family members use benefits that they're eligible for.
4) Not only does it vastly expand what we mean by "benefit," that could lead to a public charge determination, but it penalizes immigrants if the government thinks that they might need benefits in the future. You don't actually have to have been receiving them.
.@jacobsoboroff : Love your work, and am especially grateful for your reporting at the border. Here's a thread with more context on this particular set of points:
The deportations that you mention in the Obama years were 85% people who had arrived recently - this means single adults who had recently crossed the border and hadn't yet set down roots....
...of the remainder, 90% had been convicted of serious crimes. Here’s more on that topic: dhs.gov/sites/default/…
2/7 First: The Administration is using “resettle” on purpose to suggest that the US spends money on the people who come here. We don’t. Not a nickle. Except for refugees, who get access to services BECAUSE THEY ARE REFUGEES. Everybody else: nada.
3/7 You know who “resettles” most immigrants who come here? The families who sponsor them in the first place. They help them find places to live, adjust to the language. The US counts on family immigration to take care of integrating immigrants, and largely that works for us.