The American Nightmare

In her poem “Home”, acclaimed Kenyan poet, writer and teacher Warsan Shire, writes “no one leaves home / unless home is the mouth of a shark / you only run for the border / when you see the whole city running as well” . While human migratory movements are as old as human history, the relationship between the two is a counterintuitive complexity. The latter has undergone massive structural transformations but the former has only changed in appearance. It is at core still the same, it is about survival. The recent unanimous Supreme Court decision to rule against citizenship eligibility for individuals living in the US under Temporary Protection Status is thus a choice that punishes them for surviving . The benefits of the TPS program (provisionary protection for individuals who fled their home countries to escape famine, persecution, anarchy, environmental disasters) are technically intended to be temporary, but technicality holds little weight in matters regarding survival.

Many people immigrate to the US to pursue the American Dream but most immigrants simply come in search of human necessities they have been deprived of, a roof over their head and food or their table and safety. To deny them that is to epitomize the idea that legality is not inherently synonymous with morality. Having left home with nothing but the will to live, they are faced with millions of hurdles, poverty, xenophobia, job discrimination to attain the little stability, they are after.It takes years for immigrant families under Temporary Protection Status to finally establish themselves in the US.As reported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and co-signatories, 80% of TPS beneficiaries have lived in the United States for over two decades (Fritze, USA Today). It is morally reprehensible to provide shelter to people that life threatening circumstances have forcefully relocated, then to snatch it away from them after they have built families, careers and lives. Many no longer have a home to go back to . They will be forced to either face a situation worse than the one they had desperately escaped or to stay, at risk of deportation and imprisonment. In addition to being deplorable, there is no guarantee that this strategy is effective in decreasing unauthorized immigration. Research based on previous TPS terminations seem to suggest the opposite: “eliminating TPS for those immigrants would seriously destabilize the three countries and bring ‘negative consequences for U.S. national security’ by triggering ‘increased irregular migration.’ ” (Acevedo; Batalova; Bradley; The Associated Press).Uprooting hundreds of thousands of people to send them back to uncertainty and precariousness is not a strategy that can succeed. If people have to choose between potentially dying and potentially dying trying to live, they will choose the latter.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and its implementation as “protective legislature” exposes one the most sinister faces of American society. It is almost entirely based on the unfounded belief that high immigrant populations present a threat to the American economy and prosperity. A study conducted by the Immigrant Legal Resources Center reports that “deporting current Haitian, Salvadoran and Honduran TPS holders would cost our nation more than $3.1 billion; lead to a GDP reduction of $45.2 billion over a decade; and incur $6.9 billion in lost Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade”, (Bradley, Immigrant Resource Learning Center) is one of many that confirm that the immigrant workforce stimulates, rather than hinders, the economy. Be that as it may, it is inherently inhumane that the concerns for the economy serve as the focal point of a discussion around the jeopardization of people’s livelihood. It equates the value of a human life to the dollar amount that they can make .

The decision made by the Supreme Court and the public responses to the grievous, possibly lethal impact of this ruling on TPS holders and their families, demonstrates that it was not a decision made with consideration for human life and for justice. Comprehensive immigration reform is however indispensable to the building of a just and humane society, where people don’t have to risk their lives to survive.

Should we not start questioning our country’s ethical belief system if it assesses the worth of a person based on the borders they’re surrounded by?

Should we not question our judicial system if lawful immigration control is indistinguishable from what we consider violations of basic human rights?