When it comes to immigration, we’re quick to tell ourselves that the scenes we’re seeing today have never happened before. President Donald Trump is so unlike anything in our history that we seek metaphors elsewhere, in the worst moments of humankind. It’s a good story. It just doesn’t happen to be true.
I should know. In October 2005, two detectives from the New York Police Department came to my door and claimed to have my husband, a Lebanese immigrant, in custody. They questioned me about our finances particularly. I knew better than to say he worked under the table as a musician at clubs in the East Village. They were fishing, searching for any excuse to deport him, and earning tips at a nightclub would have given them a reason.
Under President Bill Clinton, immigration enforcement was reactive: Immigrants who were arrested or convicted of a crime were put into deportation proceedings. President George W. Bush’s administration took a more active approach, building databases and fostering partnerships with law enforcement to increase deportations. President Barack Obama scaled the system up.
Trump pushes the legal limits, but he uses the same strategies and systems as his predecessors. He’s just more aggressive, but then, with 3 million deportations during his time in office, Obama was pretty aggressive, too.
If we’re going to wrestle openly with the question of who we are, we need to remember who we’ve been. Yes, we’re a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation that fears immigrants, and that’s been true since the founding.
Justine el-Khazen, Brooklyn
Justice Kavanaugh’s timely opinion
The Jan. 20 editorial “Who’s watching DHS and ICE” was both timely and vital.
Fortunately, part of the legal solution to stop the violence and aggression carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers was provided by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in his Dec. 23 opinion in Trump v. Illinois regarding the misuse of force by federal immigration officials.
In a footnote in his juridically wise opinion where Kavanaugh supported the Supreme Court’s majority decision to reject the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois, the justice underscored “the basic constitutional rules” regarding immigration stops and arrests which are, according to him, “long-standing and clear.”
Kavanaugh wrote in no uncertain terms that “officers must not employ excessive force.” He clearly stated: “The Fourth Amendment requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause.”
Kavanaugh also clarified, based on a 1996 ruling, Whren v. United States, that federal immigration “officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity.”
The justice rigorously and eloquently reminded the nation of the specific legal rules and rulings within American law that should help us to urgently stop the brutality and inhumanity perpetuated daily by the Department of Homeland Security’s federal immigration agents.
Alejandro Lugo, Park Forest, Illinois
D.C. fans want women’s hockey
Regarding the Jan. 19 Metro article “A warm welcome for women’s hockey”:
My family was among the thousands who helped break the in-arena game attendance record in U.S. women’s hockey history.
I urge the Professional Women’s Hockey League to select D.C. as its next market for women’s hockey. As the crowd showed Sunday, people not only play women’s sports but they’ll also come out in full force to watch them.
I’m a longtime area resident and the proud parent of a 9-year-old daughter in the Montgomery Youth Hockey Association. My husband taught her to skate when she was 2, and she now plays on an all-girls travel hockey team.
Seeing the arena filled by amazing female hockey fans of all ages and their loved ones made me feel more at home in that arena than I have in years. I know D.C.-area fans like our family would love to be able to see more women’s hockey in person.
Marisa Van Saanen, Garrett Park
The impact of ‘boos’
Candace Buckner’s Jan. 17 Sports column, “Boobirds can quickly come home to roost,” regarding booing gave fans great credit for their influence on decisions of individual players, team owners and general managers. When the patrons in the stands choose to express displeasure by focusing on one player it stands to reason that that individual may want to exercise his right to go play for another team where he might be given more adulation. Obviously, since winning is rarely dependent on just one person, he might choose to go somewhere where the entire team deserves booing. He must be careful what he wishes for.
I find it hard to believe that owners and executives fire coaches based on booing. It is obvious that winning teams don’t get booed, except maybe in Philadelphia, so hiring and firing is more likely to be related to performance and not noise in the stadium.
Barry H. Epstein, Silver Spring
Following Sarah Fletcher’s Jan. 4 Sunday Opinion essay, “The magic has gone out of flirting. Maybe this infamous book had a point.,” Post Opinions wants to know: What should flirting look like in 2026? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
The post Calling Trump’s actions unprecedented is a good story. But it’s not true. appeared first on Washington Post.
