Immigration real talk

Given the current state of Congressional gridlock, there’s no reason to believe that U.S. immigration law will get its much-needed reform this year.

In some ways, that’s probably a good thing. The idea that the current surge of children and youth fleeing Central American violence should be immediately shipped back to violent, gang-ridden countries where they are, quite simply, not safe, is the refuge of blind nativism. The current state of Central American countries falls squarely on our own doorstep—it deserves the term “blowback,” given that U.S. drug policy and support for corrupt regimes in that region is behind the wave of violence that has a civilian death toll as high as war zones in Iraq and Syria.

The 2008 law, signed by President George W. Bush, that provides due process and special care to insure that children are not trafficked is serving a good purpose here. These children and their mothers deserve to have an opportunity to make the case that they are not safe in their country of origin and ought to receive asylum.

What’s more, the backlash by some U.S. citizens—including protesting and blocking highways to stop the passage of busloads of children and young mothers— is not merely embarrassing, it’s offensive.

We stand with Gov. Jerry Brown, who is clear that this is, first and foremost, a humanitarian crisis.

But we know that immigrants, documented or not, pay taxes and contribute to society. Immigrants are the raw material for a strong, healthy culture, and they always have been. And under no circumstances is it the American way to send children back to face violence and death.

That’s not how we do things here.