Associate Professor of English, University of Michigan-Flint. I research and teach rhetoric and writing.
5029 stories
·
43 followers

Stand For Something

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Gaza. (Photo: Getty)

It is natural to think about what happened in America over the past year in terms of the rise of Trumpism. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the real political story of 2024 is the utter emptiness of the Democratic Party. It was the year when the party’s total lack of moral grounding let it shrivel up and blow away.

The death of the Democratic Party’s claim to respectability looks like a dead child in Gaza, killed by a bomb supplied by our government. It looks like five more dead journalists in Gaza, assassinated by our ally with our blessing. It looks like one more bombed hospital in Gaza, the endpoint of the road away from humanity and towards barbarity. It looks like our government burying official warnings of a famine in Gaza, because it doesn’t suit our political purposes. All of these things were done by the Biden administration. All of these things were done by the Democrats. When Joe Biden thinks back on his time as president, he should see nothing but an image of a mother crying over a dead child with its limbs blown off by an American bomb. That is the most morally significant thing that Joe Biden accomplished in the White House. No bit of positive domestic policy or sense of personal empathy is more important than the reasoned decision to supply the tools used to conduct tens of thousands of murders. That is what Joe Biden’s half century political career adds up to. When murderers die, their crimes are the first paragraphs of their obituaries. There is no reason to treat Joe Biden differently than that. Like other criminals, he was a complex man who did many things and had many redeeming qualities, in addition to being a mass murderer.


How Things Work is a reader-supported publication. If you like it, subscribe.


Of course, Joe Biden did not kill thousands of children in Gaza all by himself. He had a political party helping him. He had advisers. He had cabinet secretaries. He had the State Department. He had ambassadors. He had an entire Democratic Party superstructure of strategists and donors and lobbyists and state party chairmen, who put him in the position to kill thousands of children, and ensured that nothing would stand in the way of his determination to enable the killings of thousands of children. The Democrats wholly and completely own every child amputee, every dead baby, every shattered civilian body, every destroyed family home, every death by starvation and disease, every life ruined by Israel’s inhuman bombardment of Gaza, which would not and could not have happened without the blessing of the Biden White House. If you have children, or a home, or loved ones, you need only ask yourself: How would I feel, if that was me? That feeling—that rage, that revulsion, that despair—is, properly, how you should feel about Joe Biden’s legacy.

If I shot your child in the head, would you forgive me because I had good green energy policy? If I blew up your entire family as they slept, would you write it off because I was pro-union? If I assassinated your brother with a missile because he was a journalist, would you feel that was okay, as long as I supported slightly higher marginal tax rates than my political opponents? We all know the answers to these things. These things are simple to understand. These things are basic. No statement about the other party, no hypothetical about what the other guy would have done, can erase what the Democrats did, themselves. If you murder someone and then tell the judge, “I know another person who would have done this murder even worse,” the judge will not let you go. If you believe that the people who supplied the means and the funding for the 9/11 hijackers to fly those planes into the World Trade Center are culpable for the deaths that occurred, there is no reason to feel any differently about the Biden administration, for what it has done to the people of Gaza. Except that the Biden administration has helped to kill many more people than Osama Bin Laden ever did.

The Democrats facilitated an awful ongoing slaughter of human beings because they found it politically convenient to do so. Whatever qualms they may have had about it, the bulk of the party—with notable and heroic exceptions—concluded that the price of not killing thousands of children was, for them personally, higher than the cost of killing thousands of children. And so they went ahead and helped to kill thousands of children. That is what happened. I am sure that the members of Congress and the foreign policy advisers and Joe Biden himself all justify what they did, when they look in the mirror, in very creative ways. But thousands of dead children speak for themselves. They amount to evidence that is irrefutable. They are blown apart. We could have prevented it, but we didn’t. Instead, we helped it happen.

There were five journalists in there.

The Democrats have a problem: They countenanced and even perpetrated atrocities for their own personal gain. But that is what they accuse the other party of doing. The Democrats, in the broadest sense, in the world of branding where political parties forge their reputations in the public mind, are supposed to be the humane party. “Callously doing bad things for selfish reasons”—why, that is what rich people do, who don’t pay their fair share. That is what runaway corporations do. That is what fossil fuel companies do. That is what all of the malignant forces that the Democratic Party brands itself as opposed to do. That is their thing! That is all of it! All of the behavior that progressives stand against is reducible to that. We, the liberals, the progressives, the leftmost half of the voting population that clusters in the Democratic Party base, are, in theory, members of the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party because we think it is bad when powerful people and institutions callously do bad things for selfish reasons. We do not support that. We dislike it when rich people do bad things for selfish reasons, when corporations do bad things for selfish reasons, when unscrupulous politicians do bad things for selfish reasons. We believe in universal love and peace and human rights and we think that, even though it’s hard, we should all pull in the direction of helping out the most vulnerable people in society. We do not believe in the unrestrained exercise of power for self-serving ends. We do not believe that the powerful should be allowed to oppress the weak. This basic belief can manifest itself in many different ways, on many different policy issues. But it is, in most cases, central to why people choose to be Democrats rather than Republicans.

So when the Democrats supply an endless stream of weapons to an aggressive ally so that that ally can oppress a weaker population and kill thousands of children, well, the Democrats have forsaken their reason to exist. What use is this party? If I were for oppression, and violence, and the granting of carte blanche to stronger groups to use force to obliterate weaker groups, I would be a Republican. They have traditionally supported those things in a more straightforward way. The Biden administration’s decision to support those things as well does not mean that I will become a Republican. It does, however, mean that I and millions of people like me have been effectively robbed of a political home. Even more so than before. If the Republicans stand for fascism and the Democrats stand for nothing, the Republicans are going to win. And, indeed, they did.


Share


Some people will wave their hands and say “the parties are both corrupt” and act as if this was all expected and therefore should not arouse any great sense of outrage in us. Though there is a certain amount of analytical truth in this world-weary pose, it also amounts to a formula for nihilism, an implicit statement that if something is not surprising then it is not worth talking about. Few things in politics are truly surprising. People have been corrupt and malevolent and violent and self-serving for thousands of years. Our collective determination to improve on humanity’s failures of the past is what makes politics worthwhile. It is important to be outraged about the Democratic Party’s vacuousness for both moral and practical reasons. Morally, if our nation is going to cling to a two-party system that forces most citizens to pick one side or the other, we all have the right to insist that the side we pick not act in abominable ways. And practically, as I have written before, the Democratic Party are the cowards who can be pushed towards righteousness through political force, rather than the enemies who cannot be moved at all.

Gaza is not the only manifestation of the Democratic Party’s emptiness. It is just the clearest one. Dead children have a way of clarifying things. You could make a list of the party’s failures to uphold its stated purpose—cultivating billionaires, failing to fight for universal health care, and on and on. Yet Gaza will suffice to make the point. When you eagerly feed the machinery of death that kills thousands of poor people, and then use your diplomatic might to block the world’s attempts to halt the slaughter, you have exhibited a total lack of the moral scruples that are supposed to make you an appealing political choice, as compared to the other party. Apart from questions of what voters thought and what issues drove the electoral outcome sits the cold fact of mass murder. Joe Biden did not lose the election because of Gaza, but he did lose his soul.

The first and most basic step forward for the Democratic Party is to stand for something. Before the internal debate on the party’s values must come the decision to have values. Today, the party can claim nothing. No ethics, no moral red lines, no ability to assert its superiority to the poisonous (but transparent) fascism on the other side. It lost all of that as the children of Gaza lost their limbs and their lives. The party that says it will protect the downtrodden cannot murder the other downtrodden. It doesn’t work. It’s not convincing. Besides going to hell, Biden’s advisors have left the Democrats with no plausible identity.

The Democratic Party is a vessel. Right now, it is an empty one. It has to be filled up with meaning that is real. It has to stand for something. The people who got it to this point should—though they won’t—cast themselves out of politics forever. The people who have genuine moral concerns about the state of the world are the only ones capable of rebuilding the party, and they will have a lot of work, given where things are today. I don’t need to be reminded that this is a lofty ideal, but it is the truth. The Democrats have tried being spectacular hypocrites who perpetrated a great atrocity. They didn’t win. Time to try the alternative.

Leave a comment


More

Subscribe now

Read the whole story
rocketo
4 days ago
reply
“If I shot your child in the head, would you forgive me because I had good green energy policy? If I blew up your entire family as they slept, would you write it off because I was pro-union? If I assassinated your brother with a missile because he was a journalist, would you feel that was okay, as long as I supported slightly higher marginal tax rates than my political opponents? We all know the answers to these things. These things are simple to understand. These things are basic.”
seattle, wa
betajames
3 days ago
reply
Michigan
Share this story
Delete

Apple Intelligence AI mangles headlines so badly the BBC officially complains

2 Shares

Apple needs you to buy the new iPhone even though the old models still work just fine. Enter Apple Intelligence, Apple’s wrapper around ChatGPT, to abbreviate your messages for you!

As an LLM, Apple Intelligence also mangles them — because LLMs don’t summarize text, they just shorten it. In one instance, a message chain starting with “That hike almost killed me!” became “Attempted suicide, but recovered and hiked in Redlands and Palm Springs.” [Twitter, archive; Verge]

Apple Intelligence saw a BBC headline about alleged CEO murderer Luigi Mangione being arrested. Apple Intelligence shortened the story to “Luigi Mangione shoots himself.” The BBC complained to Apple, in a bizarre story where BBC News reports on itself complaining about being misrepresented. [BBC]

These types of errors happen even after including prompts like “Do not hallucinate.” [Ars Technica]

Apple is floundering to promote Apple Intelligence as useful. One ad features a man writing a message to his boss with AI on his new iPhone when his computer is right there in front of him. [YouTube]

Ed Zitron is not a fan. “The product is wonky, ugly, feels constantly out of place, gets in the way of you trying to use your phone.” [Bluesky]

But Apple Intelligence has its good points. “I find the best thing about Apple intelligence is that since I haven’t enabled it, my phone optimized for onboard AI has incredible battery life,” responded another Bluesky user. [Bluesky]

 

Read the whole story
betajames
17 days ago
reply
Michigan
Share this story
Delete

Missouri Voters Enshrined Abortion Rights. GOP Lawmakers Are Already Working to Roll Them Back.

3 Shares

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

One month after Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion, Republican lawmakers in the deeply red state are already working to overturn it — or at least undermine it.

One measure would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, declaring that embryos are people with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The result would be to classify abortion as an unlawful killing.

Another proposal, aimed at repealing the abortion rights amendment, would ask voters to ban gender transition procedures for minors, tying the two issues together, despite the fact that the amendment did not address gender surgery and gender-affirming care for transgender children is already illegal in Missouri.

Other proposed amendments include stricter abortion limits, such as restricting access to cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies and fetal anomalies. These measures would impose additional requirements, such as mandating that rape survivors file police reports to obtain an abortion.

GOP lawmakers have also introduced a measure to raise the threshold for amending the state constitution through voter initiatives, which could make it harder to pass similar measures in the future.

The legislative moves follow the Nov. 5 election, in which the amendment to put abortion rights in the state constitution won by a 51.6%-48.4% margin. Starting Thursday, the right to abortion will be constitutionally guaranteed up to the point of fetal viability, while restrictions on post-viability abortions will remain in place.

In other states where voters approved abortion rights measures last month, there were no signs yet that lawmakers would also try to counter those measures.

Even before votes in Missouri had been counted, proponents of Amendment 3, as the measure was called, had anticipated that a victory would be met with efforts to somehow undercut abortion rights.

“These people will continue to rail against abortion,” said state Rep. Deb Lavender, a Democrat from the St. Louis suburbs.

Although Missouri already has a law recognizing life as beginning at conception, stating that unborn children have “protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” the proposed constitutional amendment would go further. It would effectively elevate this principle to the state constitution and potentially complicate not only abortion rights but the legality of in vitro fertilization and the handling of embryos.

Several states have laws recognizing fetal personhood, but Missouri would be the second — after Alabama — to enshrine it in its constitution. That could create legal and ideological confusion or even conflicts, experts say.

“You could see voters saying, ‘I support a right to abortion,’ but also saying, ‘Life begins at conception,’ without understanding that you can’t have both of those things at the same time,” said Jamille Fields Allsbrook, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law and a former policy analyst for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The author of one of the personhood measures, Rep. Justin Sparks, a Republican from the St. Louis suburbs, said he was emboldened by the narrow margin of the abortion rights vote.

“A clear mandate has not been achieved,” he said. While the amendment had strong support in metro St. Louis and Kansas City and in the county that’s home to the University of Missouri, “the vast majority of the rest of the state voted in a different direction,” he added. “So I think it’s fair to again bring the question up.”

But state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat also from the St. Louis suburbs, noted that Sparks was going against the will of voters in the St. Louis area. “I find that even more disrespectful of the voters,” she said. “It wasn’t just voters that tend to vote Democratic that voted yes on Amendment 3. It was also Republican voters and independent voters, and I think that’s getting lost in this discussion.”

The measure to link abortion and transgender rights reflects the campaign before the election, when abortion opponents conflated these topics. Critics said this strategy seeks to distract from abortion rights, which had strong voter support, by capitalizing on voter discomfort with transgender issues.

While GOP lawmakers push these measures, the legal landscape around abortion in Missouri is already shifting. On Wednesday, a Jackson County Circuit Court heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri that seeks to strike down Missouri’s near-total abortion ban and other laws that regulate abortion. The lawsuit followed the passage of Amendment 3. Planned Parenthood said if it wins in court it plans to resume abortion services in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia on Friday.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has acknowledged that the amendment will legalize most abortions when it goes into effect, but he has said he intends to enforce remaining restrictions, such as a ban on abortions after fetal viability, a 72-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.

Lawmakers are also pushing to raise the bar for passing constitutional amendments. Now, a simple majority is enough; that has allowed Missouri voters to bypass the legislature and pass progressive amendments that lawmakers oppose. A new bill would ask voters to pass a constitutional amendment requiring not just a statewide majority but also a majority of voters in five of the state’s eight congressional districts — a change critics argued would give disproportionate power to rural areas over urban voters. It would then be harder for voters to approve measures that don’t align with the priorities of the conservative politicians they tend to elect.

Earlier this year, a similar effort to make it harder to amend the constitution failed after Democrats in the Senate filibustered it.

Sparks criticized the Republican leadership in the General Assembly for allowing the failure, pointing to a Republican supermajority in both houses that could have passed the measure.

“We hold all the power,” Sparks said. “We hold all the procedural levers of power, and we can shut down debate in both houses any time, any day, for any bill we choose to.”

Florida shows how a higher threshold for voter initiatives might play out. In 2006, the state raised the bar for constitutional amendments to 60%. This year, a majority of voters — 57% — supported an abortion rights amendment, an even bigger margin than in Missouri, but not sufficient in Florida.

It’s not clear yet, though, whether any of the measures have enough support in Missouri’s General Assembly.

Lavender said that the campaign supporting abortion rights significantly outraised its opposition during the election. “It’s going to be difficult to overturn,” she said. “You’ll have the same money that supported it now going up against you.”

Read the whole story
betajames
27 days ago
reply
Michigan
acdha
27 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Is Apple Intelligence (and AI) For Dumb and Lazy People?

1 Share

And the challenges of an AI world where everyone is above average

I’ve been an Apple fanboy since the early 1980s. I owned one Windoze computer years ago that was mostly for games my kid wanted to play. Otherwise, I’ve been all Apple for around 40 years. But what the heck is the deal with these ads for Apple Intelligence?

In this ad (the most annoying of the group, IMO), we see a schlub of a guy, Warren, emailing his boss in idiotic/bro-based prose. He pushes the Apple Intelligence feature and boom, his email is transformed into appropriate office prose. The boss reads the prose, is obviously impressed, and the tagline at the end is “write smarter.” Ugh.

Thanks for reading Steven D. Krause! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Then there’s this one:

This guy, Lance, is in a board meeting and he’s selected to present about “the Prospectus,” which he obviously has not read. He slowly wheels his office chair and his laptop into the hallway, asks Apple’s AI to summarize the key points in this long thing he didn’t read. Then he slowly wheels back into the conference room and delivers a successful presentation. The tagline on this one? “Catch up quick.” Ugh again.

But in a way, these ads might not be too far from wrong. These probably are the kind of “less than average” office workers who could benefit the most from AI— well, up to a point, in theory.

Among many other things, my advanced writing students and I read Ethan Mollick’s Co-Intelligence, and in several different places in that book, he argues that in experiments when knowledge workers (consultants, people completing a writing task, programmers) use AI to complete tasks, they are much more productive. Further, while AI does not make already excellent workers that much better, it does help less than excellent workers improve. There’s S. Noy and W. Zhang’s Science paper “Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence;” here’s a quote from the editor’s summary:

Will generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT disrupt the labor market by making educated professionals obsolete, or will these tools complement their skills and enhance productivity? Noy and Zhang examined this issue in an experiment that recruited college-educated professionals to complete incentivized writing tasks. Participants assigned to use ChatGPT were more productive, efficient, and enjoyed the tasks more. Participants with weaker skills benefited the most from ChatGPT, which carries policy implications for efforts to reduce productivity inequality through AI.

Then there’s S. Peng et al and their paper “The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot.” This was an experiment with a programming AI on Github, and the programmers who used AI completed tasks 55.8% faster. And Mollick talks a fair amount about a project he was a co-writer on, “Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality,” which found that consultants in an experiment were more productive when allowed to use AI— except when faced with a “jagged technology frontier” problem, which in the study was a technical problem beyond the AI’s abilities. However, one of the problems Mollick and his colleagues observed is that a lot of the subjects in their study often copied and pasted content from the AI with minimal editing, and the AI-using subjects had a much harder time with that jagged frontier problem. I’ll come back to this in a couple more paragraphs.

Now, Mollick is looking at AI as a business professor, so he sees this as a good thing because it improves the quality of the workforce, and maybe it’ll enable employers to hire fewer people to complete the same tasks. More productivity with less labor equals more money, capitalism for the win. But my English major students and I all see ourselves (accurately or not) as well-above-average writers, and we all take pride in that. We like the fact we’re better at writing than most other people. Many of my students are aspiring novelists, poets, English teachers, or some other career where they make money from their abilities to write and read, and they all know that publishing writing that other people read is not something that everyone can do. So the last thing any of us who are good at something want is a technology that diminishes the value of that expertise.

This is part of what is behind various declarations of late for refusing or resisting AI, of course. Part of what is motivating someone like Ted Chiang to write about how AI can’t make art is making art is what he is good at. The last thing he wants is a world where any schmuck (like those dudes in the Apple AI ads) can click a button and be as good as he is at making art. I completely understand this reason for fearing and resisting AI, and I too hope that AI doesn’t someday in the future become humanity’s default story teller.

Fortunately for writers like Chiang and me and my students, the AI hype does not square with reality. I haven’t played around with Apple AI yet, but the reviews I’ve seen are underwhelming. I stumbled across a YouTube review by Marques Brownlee about the new AI that is quite thorough. I don’t know much about Brownlee, but he has over 19 million subscribers so he probably knows what he is talking about. If you’re curious, he talks about the writing feature in the first few minutes of this video, but the short version is he says that as a professional writer, he finds it useless.

The other issue I think my students and I are noticing is that the jagged frontier Mollick and his colleagues talk about— that is, the line/divide between tasks the AI can accomplish reasonably well and what it can’t— is actually quite large. In describing the study Mollick and his colleagues did which included a specifically difficult/can’t do with AI jagged frontier problem, I think he implies that this frontier is small. But Mollick and his colleagues— and the same is true with these other studies he quotes on this— are not studying AI in real settings. These are controlled experiments, and the researchers are trying to do all they can to eliminate other variables.

But in the more real world with lots of variables, there are jagged frontiers everywhere. The last assignment I gave in the advanced writing class asked students to attempt to “compose” or “make” something with the help of AI (a poem, a play, a song, a movie, a website, etc. etc.) that they could not do on their own. The reflection essays are not due until the last week of class, but we have had some “show and tell” exchanges about these projects. Some students were reasonably successful with making or doing something thanks to AI— and as a slight tangent: some students are better than others at prompting the AI and making it work for them. It’s not just a matter of clicking a button. But they all ran into that frontier, and for a lot of students, that was essentially how their experiment ended. For example, one student was successful at getting AI to generate the code for a website; but this student didn’t know what to do with the code the AI made to make it actually into a website. A couple of students tried to use AI to write music, but since they didn’t know much about music, their results were limited. One student tried to get AI to teach them how to play the card game Euchre, but the AI kept on doing things like playing cards in the student’s hand.

This brings me back to these Apple ads: I wish they both went on just another minute or so. Right after Warren and Lance confidently look directly at the camera with smug look that says to viewers “Do you see what I just got away with there,” they have to follow through with what they supposedly have accomplished, and I have a feeling that would go poorly. Right after Warren’s boss talks with him about that email and right after Lance starts his summary, I am pretty sure they’re gonna get busted. Sort of like what has happened when I have suspected correctly that a student used too much AI and that student can’t answer basic questions about what it is they (supposedly) wrote.

Thanks for reading Steven D. Krause! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Read the whole story
betajames
28 days ago
reply
Michigan
Share this story
Delete

Big AI Companies Need Higher Ed … but Does Higher Ed Need Them?

1 Comment
Big AI Companies Need Higher Ed … but Does Higher Ed Need Them? Elizabeth Redden Mon, 12/02/2024 - 03:00 AM Building reliance on Silicon Valley AI companies carries risks, Collin Bjork writes. Byline(s) Collin Bjork Big AI Companies Need Higher Ed … but Does Higher Ed Need Them? Elizabeth Redden

Building reliance on Silicon Valley AI companies carries risks, Collin Bjork writes.

Byline(s)
Read the whole story
betajames
30 days ago
reply
nope
Michigan
Share this story
Delete

Immigrants’ Resentment Over New Arrivals Helped Boost Trump’s Popularity With Latino Voters

3 Shares

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

At first, she didn’t think much about the Nicaraguan asylum-seekers who began moving into town a few years ago. Rosa was an immigrant too, one of the many undocumented Mexican immigrants who’d settled nearly 30 years ago in Whitewater, a small university town in southeast Wisconsin.

Some of the Nicaraguans had found housing in Rosa’s neighborhood, a trailer park at the edge of town. They sent their children to the same public schools. And they got jobs in the same factories and food-processing facilities that employed many of Rosa’s friends and relatives.

Then Rosa realized that many of the newcomers with ongoing asylum cases could apply for work permits and driver’s licenses — state and federal privileges that are unavailable to undocumented immigrants. Rosa’s feelings of indifference turned to frustration and resentment.

“It’s not fair,” said Rosa, who works as a janitor. “Those of us who have been here for years get nothing.”

Her anger is largely directed at President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for failing to produce meaningful reforms to the immigration system that could benefit people like her. In our reporting on the new effects of immigration, ProPublica interviewed dozens of long-established Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives in cities like Denver and Chicago and in small towns along the Texas border. Over and over, they spoke of feeling resentment as they watched the government ease the transition of large numbers of asylum-seekers into the U.S. by giving them access to work permits and IDs, and in some cities spending millions of dollars to provide them with food and shelter.

It’s one of the reasons so many Latino voters chose Donald Trump this election, giving him what appears to be Republicans’ biggest win in a presidential race since exit polls began tracking this data. Latinos’ increased support for Trump — who says he could use the military to execute his plans for mass deportations — defied conventional wisdom, disrupting long-held assumptions about loyalties to the Democratic Party. The shift could give Republicans reason to cater to Latinos to keep them in the party’s fold.

On the campaign trail, Trump singled out Whitewater after the police chief wrote a letter to Biden asking for help responding to the needs of the new Nicaraguan arrivals. While some residents were put off by Trump’s rhetoric about the city being destroyed by immigrants, it resonated with many of the longtime Mexican-immigrant residents we interviewed. They said they think the newcomers have unfairly received benefits that they never got when they arrived illegally decades ago — and that many still don’t have today.

Among those residents is one of Rosa’s friends and neighbors who asked to be identified by one of her surnames, Valadez, because she is undocumented and fears deportation. A single mother who cleans houses and buildings for a living, Valadez makes extra money on the side by driving immigrants who don’t have cars to and from work and to run errands. It’s a risky side hustle, though, because she’s frequently been pulled over and ticketed by police for driving without a license, costing her thousands of dollars in fines.

One day two summers ago, one of her sons found a small purse at a carnival in town. Inside they found a Wisconsin driver’s license, a work permit issued to a Nicaraguan woman and $300 in cash. Seeing the contents filled Valadez with bitterness. She asked her son to turn in the purse to the police but kept the $300. “I have been here for 21 years,” she said. “I have five children who are U.S. citizens. And I can’t get a work permit or a driver’s license.”

When she told that story to Rosa one afternoon this spring, her friend nodded emphatically in approval. Rosa, like Valadez, couldn’t vote. But two of Rosa’s U.S.-born children could, and they cast ballots for Trump. One of Rosa’s sons even drives a car with a bumper sticker that says “Let’s Go Brandon” — a popular anti-Biden slogan.

Rosa said she is glad her children voted for Trump. She’s not too worried about deportation, although she asked to be identified solely by her first name to reduce the risk. She believes Trump wants to deport criminals, not people like her who crossed the border undetected in the 1990s but haven’t gotten in trouble with the law. “They know who has been behaving well and who hasn’t been,” she said.

Immigrants seeking asylum arrive in Philadelphia in December 2022. They had been bused in from Texas, which has sent thousands of immigrants to cities around the country this way during the Biden administration. (Photo by Ryan Collerd/AFP via Getty Images)

In the months leading up to the presidential election, numerous polls picked up on the kinds of frustrations felt by Rosa and her family. Those polls indicated that many voters considered immigration one of the most pressing challenges facing the country and that they were disappointed in the Biden administration’s record.

Biden had come into office in 2021 promising a more humane approach to immigration after four years of more restrictive policies during the first Trump administration. But record numbers of immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border began to overwhelm the system. While the Biden administration avoided talking about the border situation like a crisis, the way Trump and the GOP had, outspoken critics like Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott amplified the message that things at the border were out of control while he arranged to bus thousands of immigrants to Democrat-controlled big cities around the country. In Whitewater, hundreds of Nicaraguans arrived on their own to fill jobs in local factories, and many of them drove to work without licenses, putting a strain on the small local police department with only one Spanish-speaking officer.

While the Biden administration kept a Trump expulsion policy in place for three years, it also created temporary parole programs and an app to allow asylum-seekers to make appointments to cross the border. The result was that hundreds of thousands more immigrants were allowed to come into the country and apply for work permits, but the efforts didn’t assuage the administration’s critics on the right or left. Meanwhile, moves to benefit undocumented workers who were already in the country were less publicized, said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Conchita Cruz, a co-founder and co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, which serves a network of around 1 million asylum-seekers across the country, said that because of either court challenges or processing backlogs, Biden wasn’t able to deliver on many of his promises to make it easier for immigrants who’ve lived in this country for years to regularize their status.

“Policies meant to help immigrants have not always materialized,” she said.

Cruz said that while the administration extended the duration of work permits for some employment categories, backlogs have hampered the quick processing of those extensions. As of September, there were about 1.2 million pending work permit applications, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data, with many pending for six months or more. USCIS said the agency has taken steps to reduce backlogs while processing a record number of applications.

Biden’s attempts to push for broad immigration reform in Congress, including a proposal his administration sent on his first day in office, went nowhere. Earlier this year, in an effort to prevent a political win for Biden before the election, Trump pressured Republicans to kill bipartisan legislation that would have increased border security.

Camila Chávez, the executive director of the Dolores Huerta Foundation in Bakersfield, California, said Democrats failed to combat misinformation and turn out Latino voters. She recalled meeting one young Latina Trump supporter while she knocked on voters’ doors with the foundation’s sister political action organization. The woman told her she was concerned that the new immigrant arrivals were bringing crime and cartel activity — and potentially were a threat to her own family’s safety.

“That’s our charge as organizations, to make sure that we are in the community and educating folks on how government works and to not vote against our own self-interests. Which is what’s happening now,” said Chávez, who is the daughter of famed farmworker advocate Dolores Huerta and a niece of Cesar Chávez.

Trump has made clear he intends to deliver on his deportation promises, though the details of how he’ll do it and who will be most affected remain unclear. The last time Trump was elected, he moved quickly to issue an executive order that said no “classes or categories” of people who were in the country illegally could be exempt from enforcement. Tom Homan, who Trump has picked to serve as his “border czar,” said during a recent interview with Fox & Friends that immigrants who were deemed to be a threat to public safety or national security would be a priority under a new administration. But he said immigrants with outstanding deportation orders will also be possible targets and that there will be raids at workplaces with large numbers of undocumented workers.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist, said it’s wishful thinking to believe Trump will give any special treatment to undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the U.S. for a long time. But he’s heard that sentiment among Latino voters in focus groups.

“They believe that they are playing by the rules and that they will be rewarded for it,” Madrid said. “Republicans have never been serious about legal migration, let alone illegal migration. They’re allowing themselves to believe that for no good reason.”

Sergio Garza Castillo, who owns a gas station and convenience store in Del Rio, Texas, had long voted for Democrats. But his frustration with border policy led him to vote for Trump this year. (Gerardo del Valle/ProPublica)

The Republican Party’s growing appeal to Latino voters was especially noticeable in places like Del Rio, a Texas border town. As ProPublica previously reported, Trump flipped the county where Del Rio sits from blue to red in 2020 and won it this year with 63% of the vote.

Sergio Garza Castillo, a Mexican immigrant who owns a gas station and convenience store in Del Rio, illustrates that political shift. Garza Castillo said he came to the U.S. legally as a teenager in the 1980s after his father, a U.S. citizen, petitioned and waited for more than a decade to bring his family across the border.

Ever since Garza Castillo became a U.S. citizen in 2000, he has tended to vote for Democrats, believing in their promise of immigration reform that could lead to more pathways to citizenship for long-established undocumented immigrants, including many of his friends and acquaintances.

But the Democrats “promised and they never delivered,” Garza Castillo said. “They didn’t normalize the status of the people who were already here, but instead they let in many migrants who didn’t come in the correct way.” He believes asylum-seekers should have to wait outside the country like he did.

He said he began to turn away from the Democrats in September 2021, when nearly 20,000 mostly Haitian immigrants seeking asylum waded across the Rio Grande from Mexico and camped out under the city’s international bridge near Garza Castillo’s gas station. Federal authorities had instructed the immigrants to wait there to be processed; some remained there for weeks, sleeping under tarps and blankets with little access to water and food. Garza Castillo said he and other business owners lost money when the federal government shut down the international bridge, an economic engine for Del Rio.

Some of the Haitian migrants were eventually deported; others were allowed into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims and given notices to appear in court in a backlogged immigration system that can take years to resolve a case. “That to me is offensive for those who have been living here for more than 10 years and haven’t been able to adjust their status,” Garza Castillo said.

He hopes Trump seizes on the opportunity to expand support from Latino voters by creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who’ve been here for years. “If he does that,” he said, “I think the Republican Party will be strong here for a long time.”

Anjeanette Damon, Nicole Foy, Perla Trevizo and Gerardo del Valle contributed reporting.

Read the whole story
betajames
37 days ago
reply
Michigan
acdha
37 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories