Miller is to Trump what Haldeman/Ehrlichman/Colson were to Nixon. The these men brought out the absolute worst in their employers, and played on their worst instincts. H/E/C all went to jail. Hopefully Miller will follow suit.
It is worth noting that the 1924 act did not set visa quotas for immigrants from within the Western Hemisphere. That doesn't mean there was unlimited immigration from, say, Mexico. But it did mean that the Latinos now being demonized would have been accorded greater migration privileges during Stephen Miller's golden age than he would like them to have today.
I also have the theory, and it is just a hypothesis, that something about growing up in the period with essentially no immigration--people born circa 1920-1950--warped how Americans viewed building and risk, sparking what Brink Lindsey has called the anti-Promethean backlash: https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/why-the-anti-promethean-backlash
Thank you so much, Virginia, that's interesting. In the second installment of this piece I try to debunk Miller's use of the postwar period to argue for restrictionism. Should be up soon!
Living in the Gadsden part of AZ, it interested me that in 1854 most people there had been born there and thus were Mexican. They didn't cross the border into the US - the border crossed them. Supposed citizenship & property rights under the treaty were often mismanaged (in the worst cases disregarded, as we'd see later under Jim Crow South and internment of Japanese Americans in WWII). I had the privilege to know a few whose family roots dated back to before some Eastern seaboard colonies formed the United States. Yet in our neighborhood, despite their generations of home & citizenship, they were more likely to get hassled at the BP checkpoint near Tubac than this Anglo immigrant from the Midwest.
A very thought provoking article. In the late 1900s, our country went through a very anti-Asian immigration process. Italians and Greeks were not welcomed for a time. Of course none of that justifies the current policies. Jus the humble opinion of an old hermit. (In Norfolk Virginia, the old joke was "Dogs and sailors keep off the grass!" Hope I haven't upset anyone!)
The post-1980 immigration standards weren't permanent. We now have 45 years of data on what that does to our country. So, let's try the next 45 how Coolidge did . . . or pre-Jimmy Carter. It's just a basic reversion to the long-term mean from a wildly extreme system like we have right now. It'll be fine once it's changed.
Stephen, not defending Trump's actions, but please consider Obama's stance on open borders:
----
Obama's policy and dire warning on immigration:
"Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws" —President Obama
Why the man with the best information and highest security clearance on earth said this:
Bloomberg: Headline: Venezuela's Violent Deaths Fall to 22-Year Low on Migration
Text: Venezuela's rate of violent deaths dropped to its lowest level in more than two decades following years of massive migration as both criminals and victims fled the nation's economic crisis. —Archived Source: https://archive.is/JOaY9
…earlier than highest security, though not sure that’s critical to this quote.
Your Obama quote couldn’t have been inspired by the Bloomberg article you linked, nor could have guided his presidential acts, since it was published 17 years after the quote and 7 years after he left office. Regardless, the article offers no numbers on how much of Venezuela’s out migration was to the US.
When discussing immigration issues, isn’t it more beneficial to work with the most relevant factual info?
It shows before even getting into office he knew to keep the border locked shut. Clinton knew as well over 25 years ago:
"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
I don't think either Obama or Clinton ever sought to keep the border "locked shut." Your first post above seems to warn against "open borders" but that's not proposed in the Greg Sargent article connected to these Comments.
If it helps, I lived for 10 years near the US border Mexico. Couldn't see it from my porch - required a 30 minute drive to hike a trail or walk a city street along it. Please rest assured, that border isn't open. In addition to bollards & razor wire, I've seen the high tech resources used by Border Patrol (what they'd show a civilian) and took a ride-along with BP. Of course I've seen it's many weaknesses as a deterrent as well.
Sargent's article points up how Miller's actions indicate extreme hostility to immigration writ large, including cancelling and rolling back various forms of legal status. A great many Americans disagree with such level of hostility. Polls usually show the majority of us want a fair & functional system of immigration laws & enforcement - neither any chaos that could come from "open borders" (which we haven't had since the 1800s), nor the chaos of militarized actions in our communities against non-violent neighbors and even against US citizens. We can pursue more effective enforcement of immigration laws at the border AND maintain America's long standing welcoming stance to people who come here for reasons much as our own ancestors did. The Senate Bipartisan Border Bill in 2024 (aka Lankford bill) would have made steps in that direction but Trump worked to kill any hope of agreeing on those bipartisan reforms.
For a more elegant explanation of American ideals on immigration, I'd offer Reagan's remarks about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Emma Lazarus poem The New Colossus.
Can we please just fast-forward to the end of this criminal administration, when the key players are all in hiding, in jail, or self-"deported" to that lovely CECOT in the sky?
Didn’t know he was cracking down on legal immigration. Do you have a link or example? Terminating temporary protective status after thirty years is not unreasonable.
It doesn't matter if its legal vs illegal, they are going after all kind of people. I’m an immigrant physician myself and heart surgeon. I’ve lived in the U.S. for nine years, and I have two American citizen children.
Here is the basic context for anyone unfamiliar with how this works:
1. Most immigrant physicians cannot go straight to citizenship.
Many of us come on a J-1 visa and then must complete a J-1 waiver, which requires years of work in underserved areas before we are even allowed to move forward toward permanent residency. That process alone often pushes the timeline to 10–15 years before citizenship is even possible.
2. I did exactly what the system required.
I completed the underserved-area service commitment, followed every rule, and only recently was I finally able to apply for a green card. I was approved for EB1 (Einstein Visa green card).
3. Now there is a new, categorical barrier based on birthplace.
Stephen Miller has pushed for a policy that effectively targets people based on country of birth (roughly 40 countries he labels as “third world”), regardless of how long they have lived here or how clean their record is. And this is not limited to green cards or citizenship. It also affects work permits and visa renewals. Its categorical based on where you were born.
4. What that means in real life is brutal and immediate.
If this continues, I may have to stop working within months because I am due for a visa renewal that is being frozen with no timeline. I could remain in the U.S. legally, yet be barred from working. That puts basic life stability at risk: my family’s income, my children’s schooling, and even our health insurance.
5. This is happening to thousands of physicians.
Syrian, Iranian, Sudanese, Nigerian, Afghan, and other U.S.-trained physicians are caught in the same limbo. Many are now looking at Canada or New Zealand, not because they want to leave the U.S., but because they need stability and the ability to keep providing for their families.
6. Why this feels so wrong.
This is not a targeted enforcement policy. It is a blanket, birth-country-based restriction that does not distinguish between law-abiding people and criminals, and it applies no matter how long someone has lived in the U.S. In practice, it indicate. It uses “delays,” “extra checks,” or “processing holds” to block employment, push people into financial ruin, and effectively force legal immigrants to self-deport.
And the hardest part is that many of these policies operate quietly in the background. If you don’t understand immigration law, you may never realize what is happening, and they are counting on that
This is the problem with you twats: you've made this a decision between open borders and deport everyone. You further enshittify your position by making assimilation into the broader culture verboten and force an ethnic balkanization onto us. That being the choice I stand with the deport them all camp.
Trump, listening to Miller, is the enshittifier-in-chief here, Mr. Twat. He's the one who made this a binary option between open borders (that never existed and were never proposed by anyone) and deport everyone. Hell, Mr. Twat, you might be deported next, if for some reason Trump would have something to gain with that. And nobody has made assimilation 'verboten' -- it's ongoing, healthy, and yielding millions of well-integrated Americans every single year.
Miller is to Trump what Haldeman/Ehrlichman/Colson were to Nixon. The these men brought out the absolute worst in their employers, and played on their worst instincts. H/E/C all went to jail. Hopefully Miller will follow suit.
It is worth noting that the 1924 act did not set visa quotas for immigrants from within the Western Hemisphere. That doesn't mean there was unlimited immigration from, say, Mexico. But it did mean that the Latinos now being demonized would have been accorded greater migration privileges during Stephen Miller's golden age than he would like them to have today.
I also have the theory, and it is just a hypothesis, that something about growing up in the period with essentially no immigration--people born circa 1920-1950--warped how Americans viewed building and risk, sparking what Brink Lindsey has called the anti-Promethean backlash: https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/why-the-anti-promethean-backlash
Thank you so much, Virginia, that's interesting. In the second installment of this piece I try to debunk Miller's use of the postwar period to argue for restrictionism. Should be up soon!
Some observations about border w/Mexico in the era you mention: https://www.history.com/articles/illegal-border-crossing-usa-mexico-section-1325
Living in the Gadsden part of AZ, it interested me that in 1854 most people there had been born there and thus were Mexican. They didn't cross the border into the US - the border crossed them. Supposed citizenship & property rights under the treaty were often mismanaged (in the worst cases disregarded, as we'd see later under Jim Crow South and internment of Japanese Americans in WWII). I had the privilege to know a few whose family roots dated back to before some Eastern seaboard colonies formed the United States. Yet in our neighborhood, despite their generations of home & citizenship, they were more likely to get hassled at the BP checkpoint near Tubac than this Anglo immigrant from the Midwest.
A very thought provoking article. In the late 1900s, our country went through a very anti-Asian immigration process. Italians and Greeks were not welcomed for a time. Of course none of that justifies the current policies. Jus the humble opinion of an old hermit. (In Norfolk Virginia, the old joke was "Dogs and sailors keep off the grass!" Hope I haven't upset anyone!)
Stephen Miller’s ancestors came over legally. That doesn’t mean he is being hypocritical in cracking down on illegal immigrants.
But it does mean he is hypocricial in cracking down on legal immigration, as he is now doing.
The post-1980 immigration standards weren't permanent. We now have 45 years of data on what that does to our country. So, let's try the next 45 how Coolidge did . . . or pre-Jimmy Carter. It's just a basic reversion to the long-term mean from a wildly extreme system like we have right now. It'll be fine once it's changed.
When I look at this guy I see Reinhard Heydrick and not just because of physical resemblance
It didn't take long for the discussion to reach the Godwin point.
Stephen, not defending Trump's actions, but please consider Obama's stance on open borders:
----
Obama's policy and dire warning on immigration:
"Those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws" —President Obama
Why the man with the best information and highest security clearance on earth said this:
Bloomberg: Headline: Venezuela's Violent Deaths Fall to 22-Year Low on Migration
Text: Venezuela's rate of violent deaths dropped to its lowest level in more than two decades following years of massive migration as both criminals and victims fled the nation's economic crisis. —Archived Source: https://archive.is/JOaY9
TriTorch - according to google, your Obama quote seems to come from a 2006 Senate speech - http://obamaspeeches.com/061-Immigration-Reform-Obama-Speech.htm
…earlier than highest security, though not sure that’s critical to this quote.
Your Obama quote couldn’t have been inspired by the Bloomberg article you linked, nor could have guided his presidential acts, since it was published 17 years after the quote and 7 years after he left office. Regardless, the article offers no numbers on how much of Venezuela’s out migration was to the US.
When discussing immigration issues, isn’t it more beneficial to work with the most relevant factual info?
It shows before even getting into office he knew to keep the border locked shut. Clinton knew as well over 25 years ago:
"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens."
Bill Clinton
I don't think either Obama or Clinton ever sought to keep the border "locked shut." Your first post above seems to warn against "open borders" but that's not proposed in the Greg Sargent article connected to these Comments.
If it helps, I lived for 10 years near the US border Mexico. Couldn't see it from my porch - required a 30 minute drive to hike a trail or walk a city street along it. Please rest assured, that border isn't open. In addition to bollards & razor wire, I've seen the high tech resources used by Border Patrol (what they'd show a civilian) and took a ride-along with BP. Of course I've seen it's many weaknesses as a deterrent as well.
Sargent's article points up how Miller's actions indicate extreme hostility to immigration writ large, including cancelling and rolling back various forms of legal status. A great many Americans disagree with such level of hostility. Polls usually show the majority of us want a fair & functional system of immigration laws & enforcement - neither any chaos that could come from "open borders" (which we haven't had since the 1800s), nor the chaos of militarized actions in our communities against non-violent neighbors and even against US citizens. We can pursue more effective enforcement of immigration laws at the border AND maintain America's long standing welcoming stance to people who come here for reasons much as our own ancestors did. The Senate Bipartisan Border Bill in 2024 (aka Lankford bill) would have made steps in that direction but Trump worked to kill any hope of agreeing on those bipartisan reforms.
For a more elegant explanation of American ideals on immigration, I'd offer Reagan's remarks about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Emma Lazarus poem The New Colossus.
Best regards - j
Can we please just fast-forward to the end of this criminal administration, when the key players are all in hiding, in jail, or self-"deported" to that lovely CECOT in the sky?
What a wonderful publication: deleting any replies that push back against this narrative.
So much for truth and transparency.
Can't be trusted.
We have community guidelines for our comments section that we link to in every post. Here they are if you'd like to take a look: https://www.theunpopulist.net/about#§comments-policy
I know, right?
Didn’t know he was cracking down on legal immigration. Do you have a link or example? Terminating temporary protective status after thirty years is not unreasonable.
It doesn't matter if its legal vs illegal, they are going after all kind of people. I’m an immigrant physician myself and heart surgeon. I’ve lived in the U.S. for nine years, and I have two American citizen children.
Here is the basic context for anyone unfamiliar with how this works:
1. Most immigrant physicians cannot go straight to citizenship.
Many of us come on a J-1 visa and then must complete a J-1 waiver, which requires years of work in underserved areas before we are even allowed to move forward toward permanent residency. That process alone often pushes the timeline to 10–15 years before citizenship is even possible.
2. I did exactly what the system required.
I completed the underserved-area service commitment, followed every rule, and only recently was I finally able to apply for a green card. I was approved for EB1 (Einstein Visa green card).
3. Now there is a new, categorical barrier based on birthplace.
Stephen Miller has pushed for a policy that effectively targets people based on country of birth (roughly 40 countries he labels as “third world”), regardless of how long they have lived here or how clean their record is. And this is not limited to green cards or citizenship. It also affects work permits and visa renewals. Its categorical based on where you were born.
4. What that means in real life is brutal and immediate.
If this continues, I may have to stop working within months because I am due for a visa renewal that is being frozen with no timeline. I could remain in the U.S. legally, yet be barred from working. That puts basic life stability at risk: my family’s income, my children’s schooling, and even our health insurance.
5. This is happening to thousands of physicians.
Syrian, Iranian, Sudanese, Nigerian, Afghan, and other U.S.-trained physicians are caught in the same limbo. Many are now looking at Canada or New Zealand, not because they want to leave the U.S., but because they need stability and the ability to keep providing for their families.
6. Why this feels so wrong.
This is not a targeted enforcement policy. It is a blanket, birth-country-based restriction that does not distinguish between law-abiding people and criminals, and it applies no matter how long someone has lived in the U.S. In practice, it indicate. It uses “delays,” “extra checks,” or “processing holds” to block employment, push people into financial ruin, and effectively force legal immigrants to self-deport.
And the hardest part is that many of these policies operate quietly in the background. If you don’t understand immigration law, you may never realize what is happening, and they are counting on that
Maybe the policy needs some refinement.
This is the problem with you twats: you've made this a decision between open borders and deport everyone. You further enshittify your position by making assimilation into the broader culture verboten and force an ethnic balkanization onto us. That being the choice I stand with the deport them all camp.
Trump, listening to Miller, is the enshittifier-in-chief here, Mr. Twat. He's the one who made this a binary option between open borders (that never existed and were never proposed by anyone) and deport everyone. Hell, Mr. Twat, you might be deported next, if for some reason Trump would have something to gain with that. And nobody has made assimilation 'verboten' -- it's ongoing, healthy, and yielding millions of well-integrated Americans every single year.
Mr. Twat, you need to get out more.
Please refrain from needlessly hostile replies and personal attacks in this comment section.