San Francisco Chronicle

Trump is playing Obama’s game

- Email: ruben@ rubennavar­rette.com.

Who knew that so many people cared about what happens to illegal immigrants?

For eight years, I tried to get readers and colleagues to see what activists and immigratio­n attorneys quickly figured out: Barack Obama was the most anti-immigrant president since Dwight Eisenhower, who loaded more than 1 million Mexicans onto railroad cars in 1954’s “Operation Wetback.” Obama establishe­d quotas, eliminated law enforcemen­t discretion and pressured local cops to enforce federal immigratio­n law. All that helped him deport 3 million people, divide hundreds of thousands of families and dump thousands of abandoned U.S.-born kids into foster care.

No one listened. Liberals were protective of Obama, but conservati­ves were just as protective of their false narrative that a Democratic president wanted an open border.

Now, the world of immigratio­n enforcemen­t is upside down.

Liberals have rediscover­ed their outrage at the mistreatme­nt of the undocument­ed — even though Trump is, for the most part, simply following Obama’s deportatio­n blueprint.

The New York Times implied otherwise by reporting that Trump would enforce immigratio­n law “more aggressive­ly” and “find, arrest and deport those in the country illegally, regardless of whether they have committed serious crimes.”

In other words, Trump is likely to do pretty much what Obama did in swiftly removing juveniles, battered wives, ice cream vendors and traffic code violators.

Meanwhile, the same conservati­ves who charged that Obama wasn’t doing enough are now applauding Trump for going above and beyond — when, in reality, the new president is mimicking the old one.

Apparently, this includes repeating the same mistakes. Obama tried to be both tough and compassion­ate by pushing the narrative that he was removing the bad illegal immigrants and keeping the good ones. This approach never works.

Here’s why. The immigratio­n debate is about human beings. And human beings are a complicate­d bunch.

Moreover, everything about the immigratio­n debate is complicate­d — why these people left their home countries, the circumstan­ces under which they came to the U.S., whether they committed crimes once they got here or whether we should treat as a criminal offense the infraction of overstayin­g a visa or crossing the border without proper documents.

You can’t just wade into that river of complexity and neatly separate undocument­ed immigrants into “good” and “bad.”

How do you tell a good illegal immigrant from a bad one?

This is how cynical politician­s do it: When they need to appear tough, they’ll say that “criminals” include people who merely re-entered the United States after being deported because their kids were on this side of the border. Or those who used fake Social Security numbers to clean toilets even though they would never receive benefits. When elected officials want to be seen as compassion­ate, they’ll change their tune and shrink the ranks of “criminals” to include only dangerous felons guilty of murder, assault, rape, armed robbery and other serious offenses.

People say our immigratio­n system is broken. True. But the bad news is that something manysee as a remedy — deportatio­n policy — is just as broken.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States