Part One:
Our first guest is Walter Shapiro, staff writer at The New Republic, who is covering his eleventh (yes, 11th) presidential campaign. We discuss Joe Biden’s “confounding candidacy.” Shapiro’s latest article asks a great question: “The former VP is drawing tiny, unenthusiastic crowds in Iowa. So why is he still one of the front-runners?” Shapiro answers his own question: nearly everybody likes Biden, and, in addition, they empathize with all the suffering that Biden has endured during his lifetime.
Shapiro compares Biden to Gerald Ford, who was a reassuring, transitional figure after a very stressful and divisive time in American politics. Perhaps Biden can restore a sense of stability and civility. But can the country afford to stand still for four years in order to make the “transition”? Remember that Pres. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in order to help us “heal.” Do we want again to close our eyes to our past mistakes, to eschew accountability, to “just move on” with blinders on, learning nothing … until the next time?
I.e., in addition to healing from the Trumpian abberation, don’t we need leadership in *reversing the harm* that Trump has done through his hate-mongering, demeaning of anyone who disagrees with him, “otherizing” people who don’t look like him, and rupturing US relationships with the rest of the world (our allies and other countries where the US used to have some salutary influence)? And, of course, lying: our president and our country need to be trusted as truthful, reliable, and rational. In other words, don’t we need a president who will start to *put the nation on a different path,* toward a brighter, more equitable, more humane future — a more American future?
We also discuss potential Vice Presidential running mates, and who might be the greatest help to the ticket in defeating Trump in the general election. We don’t limit our consideration just to former candidates for president.
Part Two:
We speak with Tyler Moran, director of The Immigration Hub, about the recent Supreme Court decision overruling a lower court injunction and allowing Pres. Trump’s “public charge” rule to remain in effect.
The public charge rule denies visas and green cards to anyone the administration decides *may* rely on public aid. It will force people to forego food stamps, housing assistance and health care. What will this accomplish, except to drive families to illness, starvation and homelessness?
The public charge rule radically alters the laws passed by Congress. It furthers Trump’s effort to limit *legal* immigration by any means necessary. It bars anyone who isn’t white, highly educated and wealthy from seeking refuge in America.
This policy is a humanitarian catastrophe and a display of rank hypocrisy. Trump often rails against illegal immigration and cities that provide sanctuary to immigrants who don’t have all necessary documentation. Yet the public charge rule is directed *not at illegal immigration.* Instead, it limits who can *legally* immigrate to the U.S. Essentially, it requires a wealth test to come into the US legally.
In actual fact, because we don’t have a living wage in this country, many *working poor* families need to access public asistance – medicaid and food assistance – because the family members who are working don’t earn enough money to support their families. So these public assistance benefits are for people who are working but who can’t meet their basic needs even with a full-time job.
The Immigration Policy Institute did a study of people who had applied for green cards during the last 5 years. 69% of those applicants had *at least one* of these negative factors that could count against them in their effort to obtain legal permanent residency status (green cards). So this public charge test is going to affect many people, primarily women, children and the elderly. Moreover, it is likely to shift legal immigration away from Latin America and toward Europe (i.e., from a browner population to more white).
The chilling effects of this rule are already being seen in Texas, where 150,000 fewer people are accessing Medicaid. Similarly, 18 states are seeing drops of 20% in WIC recipients, the program for pregnant moms and babies. Why these effects? People are afraid. Even if they are *fully eligible* for public assistance benefits, they aren’t getting it because of this fear. Is that why the administration is adopting these policies?
We also discuss other policies by which Trump seeks to limit *legal* immigration into the U.S. to anyone who is not white, well-educated and wealthy. Another new rule limits immigration (*legal* immigration) of women whom Border Patrol agents believe *may* be coming to the US intending to give birth – soon or at some other time.
The administration claims that it needs this pregnancy profiling in order to stop what they call the problem of “birth tourism.” (Like his allegations of widespread voter fraud which he has to prevent through voter suppression, the alleged “problem” has no factual basis.)
Instead, Moran calls this policy a “Handmaid’s Tale test,” turning Border Patrol officers into the *”reproductive police.”* The US already has rules and procedures in place to prevent people from trying to travel to the US under false pretenses.
We also discuss a recent article in The Atlantic, reporting on the Trump administration’s plans to add another target to its immigration policies: Africans and people with darker skin — i.e., people from what Trump called “shithole countries.” As with his targeting of people from Latin America, Trump is essentially barring immigration based on people’s race.
Not surprisingly, hatred of immigrants — xenophobia — is a big part of Trump’s re-election strategy in the 2020 campaign (as it was in 2016). During the past 8 months, his anti-immigration Facebook ads have cost his campaign $2.9 million. That’s on Facebook alone – excluding Google and other platforms.
In contrast, every one of the Democratic candidates have platforms that try to improve our immigration system, to permit diversity among legal immigrants, and to create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigants. Unfortunately, most of the immigration discussions in the Democratic debates have focused on the areas where candidates disagree. At this point, the candidates should emphasize all the important immigration policies that they agree on. They should emphasize the distinction between Democratic policies (rooted in American – and fundamental human – values) and Trump’s approach to immigration (xenophobic, cruel, and chaotic policies).
We agreed that, in the long run, history will be on our side.
