[edited to quote current Mission Statement verbatim, per rtd‘s comment; new text in red, original text below in blue]
America under Mr. Trump is transmuted. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) modifies its mission statement from:
“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.” [emphasis added – mdc]
to:
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
[changed text 2/24 12PM Pacific – thanks to rtd for pointing out that “as a nation of immigrants” is not the only thing modified] Original text reads:
…to:
“USCIS secures America’s promise
as a nation of immigrantsby providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”
The head of USCIS stated that this change was not at the direction of the White House.
Sometimes I like to tackle issues with sarcasm or maybe a dark joke. I’m not even above using stereotypes sometimes for a laugh (if they have a ring of truth, I’m not using “absolutes”). it’s just for a laugh.
But I have no words for this. No words. Who believes Trump or Miller didn’t direct this somehow?? I think on very very RARE occasions some immigrants are “hard-nosed” on this. They say “Well I went the legal route, so these other immigrants must also go the legal route. But as I said it’s rare. Who cannot have at least some heart to those who stretch the rules sometimes, when presented with very limited choices to have a better life??
I lived in China about 7 years (as a white male). The government in China is largely sinister and predatory on its own people. But it may have been the richest experience of my life (outside of maybe college) to share those 7 years with the warm, gracious, and exceedingly intelligent and pragmatic by necessity, Chinese citizenry. I created many strong friendships and even a few “loving bonds” for lack of a better descriptor. I can honestly say, at least on the personal level (not professional, which is a different paradigm) I was the one who got the long end of the stick in most of my personal relationships there (most, not all). GENERALLY, Chinese were much more generous towards me than I could “repay” them. I only learned very very limited mandarin (‘cuz I’m a lazy SOB). I’ve “seen how the other side lives”. No, I don’t want them to “come over in droves”. But neither do I begrudge them if they find creative ways and a high ability (this does NOT include buying visas) to get over here.
In my very modest size group at work, two of my colleagues are Chinese. We had someone else from China and another person from Taiwan who went onto other opportunities. I also work with someone from Mexico and my former boss was from India.
I have been lucky to work with people from all over the world in my career. The current White House is not exactly a place where I wish to be employed.
Menzie,
Your post is disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent as your characterization of the modified mission statement is inaccurate. It seems as if you’re treating this akin to an FOMC statement where a single line is omitted or changed with the rest of the text unchanged and this is a misrepresentation. Your disregard for accuracy is nearly as bad as this administration’s.
rtd Your comment is intellectually dishonest. Deleting the words “a nation of immigrants” may not have materially changed the meaning of the rest of the text, but it certainly changed the meaning of the mission statement taken as a whole. If it didn’t make any difference, then why would they have gone to the trouble of making any change…especially one that you think didn’t matter? The obvious intent of the change was to downplay the role of immigrants in building this country. The original text emphasized that immigrants were central to making America what it is. The revised text suggests that immigrants are merely guests in a white European culture and they shouldn’t get any uppity ideas and should leave their past cultural traditions at the airport gate. I’m only surprised that they didn’t add a comment about the USCIS’s mission to protect our precious bodily fluids.
rtd: Please explain why my characterization of the change is either disingenuous or negligent. Is it true or not that the mission statement is now as indicate, whereas previously it included the struck-out words? Did I write that the White House had directed the change. Did the head of USCIS demur on the change being made in the mission statement.
Please tell me what one single item is inaccurately relayed in my post.
The only statement that is subject to interpretation is: “America under Mr. Trump is transmuted.” If you disagree, and you believe that this specific statement is disingenuous, please state as such.
I would be happy to post your response as an independent guest post, as a critique of my post. Please be concise and detailed in your response, so all can see what sort of person you are.
Thank you in advance for your time and considered opinion.
Menzie:
You ask “Please explain why my characterization of the change is either disingenuous or negligent.” It was disingenuous because it wasn’t complete. It was negligent by neglecting other changes. This all despite being authored to be a representation reflecting the totality of changes within the USCIS mission statement. This is how people tend to read edited material – everything stays except the strikethrough.
You ask “Is it true or not that the mission statement is now as indicate” (I’m assuming you intended to say “indicated” – if not please let me know). This is not true as the mission statement now reads: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.” You’re correct that “previously it included the struck-out words” but in err in thinking it’s currently as your edits indicate.
You ask “Did I write that the White House had directed the change.” You did not write that nor did I claim that you wrote that.
You request that I “Please tell me what one single item is inaccurately relayed in my post.” What is inaccurate is your representation that the mission statement is now: “USCIS secures America’s promise by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.” Whereas this is incomplete.
You claim “The only statement that is subject to interpretation is: “America under Mr. Trump is transmuted.” If you disagree, and you believe that this specific statement is disingenuous, please state as such.” This is false as it can be very easily interpreted from your initial post that the mission statement only changed as indicated in the strikethrough. This is an extremely common way to interpret edited writings as I noted is a common practice in comparing FOMC statements (e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/the-feds-monthly-meeting-heres-what-changed-in-the-new-statement.html and many others). FWIW, I agree that “America under Mr. Trump is transmuted.”
You state “I would be happy to post your response as an independent guest post, as a critique of my post.” I would be honored to join Dr. Hamilton as a member of this blog.
You request that I “be concise and detailed in your response, so all can see what sort of person you are.” I hope I have fulfilled your request and shown “all” that I appreciate honesty and completeness even in political blogging from economists.
You say “Thank you in advance for your time and considered opinion.” I say “you’re quite welcome”.
rtd: Thanks for pointing out the actual wording of the final Mission Statement. I’m going to post your comment as a guest blog post. I do note that for me, the deletion of “a nation of immigrants” remains key, but people can disagree. Still going to tell my Mom that she’s no longer considered part of the Nation.
But then, she won’t be particularly surprised — those who are members of the national grouping once targeted by the Exclusion Laws are used to that.
I agree that “the deletion of “a nation of immigrants” remains key” but glad you’ve realized the negligence of your blogging.
As it relates to your mother, just be sure to tell her the complete mission statement including the fact that she is not longer a “customer” of the US. More importantly though, just because something is omitted doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold. FWIW, I consider her a part of the nation and I’m sure most people do too.
Also, don’t feel obliged to create a blog post over something as silly as your sloppiness. All I ask is that you do better.
rtd: No, I promised, and will fulfill. Thanks again for pointing out the newest version of the mission statement. I do want to be careful, but I think your views and interpretation should be highlighted.
small typo:
As it relates to your mother, just be sure to tell her the complete mission statement including the fact that she is NO longer a “customer” of the US.
rtd: I think she’s already come to that conclusion — she watches the news. She’s seen the Communists and the Japanese occupation and so she recognizes when one is considered not a true (fill in the blank).
Menzie,
Before the blog post, I’m interested in your statement “but I think your views and interpretation should be highlighted” because this matters. What view and what interpretation? I just called you out on not being complete. I didn’t state any view or interpretation other than my concern of your sloppiness. Please elucidate.
rtd: You characterized the post as “disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent…” I’m going to let people weigh in on whether they concur with your assessment or not. Seems fair to me. Post now online here. Tell me if any corrections need be made to the text.
Menzie,
You altered your initial post.
rtd: Yes, and I noted it just below — and thanked you. I guess I could put the initial wording. Will do so.
My preference is you have the initial post as it was published. Any edits should follow the post. Your hastiness has bit you in the buttocks again, Dr Chinn.
rtd: Thanks for indicating your preferences.
You still haven’t corrected the problem. I want the entire original blog post as it was when I made my comments. You can edit below the original blog post. But the original unaltered text in its entirety should be preserved.
rtd: Thanks for the statement of your beliefs.
Menzie, I don’t know why you’re unwilling to oblige here. With out the original and unedited post in its entirety, your whole exercise is moot. Certainly you can understand this.
The editing on this post is atrocious.
@Menzie
Menzie, although I think I understand your sentiment and your anger about this (as much as a white male can understand it). It is a very justified anger and a very substantive anger. And I really had a trepidation and reticence making this comment as I feel you have already taken very unfair and morally wrong criticism in this post. But I do hope you will not tell your Mom that she is not a [very] welcome member of America. One leader’s sentiment does not reflect a majority of the nation’s sentiment. And yes there are strong “pockets” of racists in America. I would argue most of them are north of Florida and south of the Mason-Dixon line.
But surely you agree that, say for example, some of the things the leader of the Philippines has said don’t represent the majority views of the citizens?? And that although his words/actions are very sickening and inexcusable, that they don’t represent the “average citizen’s” view or even the majority view??
@Menzie
In another comment in this thread I said this in defense of Menzie, as I felt and feel he has done absolutely nothing wrong. But I worded a sentence in a poor way, that I feel there is a small chance it could have been misperceived by Menzie. I said the following:
“And I really had a trepidation and reticence making this comment as I feel you have already taken very unfair and morally wrong criticism in this post.”
When I said “in this post”, the better way to have expressed that was in this comment thread. I hope that was clear to Menzie when he originally read it, as my exact wording could have been better. But I wanted to make that definitively clear.
The irony about Melania Trump’s parents getting Green Cards and soon citizenship is striking: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/melania-trumps-parents-will-soon-be-citizens-they-can-thank-chain-migration/2018/02/23/920eca48-1750-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2cca2f0a2f05
Melania’s parents are white. These are the kind of immigrants her husband says he likes.
pgl: Nail on the head. In other words, MAWA.
BTW – I’m white. Irish Protestant to be precise. I had the joy of living in Dublin in 1993/4 and was very welcomed by the Irish Catholics. That we could bomb each other’s bar over tribalism just appalled me to no end.
I also grew up in Atlanta and my hero is Dr. King. I therefore abhor all forms of discrimination. This President has a lot of faults but his coddling of racism is by far the worst aspect of a dangerous Administration.
I now live in New York City and take the subway where people from all over the world are welcomed. Except maybe on the Uppity East Side where Trump lived before his moved to the White House.
I agree with a lot of this but I do feel in stereotyping UES residents, aside from being false in doing so, you’re also stooping to a Trumpian-level of discrimination.
Apparently, America’s promise does not extend to Native Americans. Or perhaps they are immigrants, too, Johnny-come-latelys of only 10,000 years ago.
Steven Kopits: That’s how I’ve interpreted it. But then I have an open mind.
We pretend on Thanksgiving that the Native Americans welcomed the new immigrants and then everyone lived happily ever after. Oh well – the first part of that sentence is true.
The Trump version is correct.
“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”
This statement is, as I read it, prejudicial against Native Americans who are considered, by most standards, not to be immigrants. They are the original inhabitants, hence the use of the term ‘native’.
As to the wording of the previous version:
“USCIS secures America’s promise…” America is not promising anything. USCIS is a bureaucracy executing an administrative function.
“…as a nation of immigrants….” except those pesky Native Americans….
“…by providing accurate and useful information ,…” Really? That’s their primary function? Providing information?
“…to our customers…” Do we consider applicants ‘customers’? Customers are usually a profit center. Is this a profit center?
“… granting immigration and citizenship benefits…” I believe they just administer the permanent residency and naturalization process. I do not believe they grant the benefits, ie, they cannot, for example, decide that some citizens just don’t get everything that comes with the package,
“…promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship…” OK, again they are in the information provision business
“…and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system….” which I take to mean ‘honesty and competence’. Nothing wrong with that.
Now the Trump version:
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system…” That is actually their mission statement.
“…safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits…” OK, so the applicant applies and they process the application, ostensibly fairly and efficiently — yes, again that is literally what they are supposed to do
“…while protecting Americans, securing the homeland,.” Thus, USCIS is intended to serve Americans first, by protecting them and the country. OK, you might not like that, but a lot of Americans actually think USCIS works for Americans, and not foreigners.
“…and honoring our values” This is a value statement, just as the ‘nation of immigrants’ is in the prior statement. You can like it or not. Some people think being American implies certain values. Not everyone does.
Personally, I far prefer the current version.
Steve Kopits: I am unsurprised. See my post.
So let me answer your questions:
“Why delete “a nation of immigrants”? Aren’t we a nation of immigrants? Or are we to be a nation of immigrants no longer — only the native born can stay?”
Native Americans are ordinarily not considered immigrants. I suppose if we are to say Native Americans are not Americans, or perhaps that being here 10,000 years still makes them ‘immigrants’, then sure, we’re a nation of immigrants. Like Egypt. Or Iraq. Or Greece. All the folks there are immigrants, after all.
“Why delete “providing accurate and useful information”? Is accurate information off the table? In ordinary times, I wouldn’t wonder, but these are not ordinary times, particularly when Mr. Trump is constantly disparaging objective facts as “fake news”. (It is useful to recall that Mr. Trump spent a good eight years “wondering” if President Obama was truly born in America.)”
They are not primarily in the information provision business. At least I don’t think they are. They administer the residency and naturalization process. They are not CNBC, Bloomberg or the help desk.
Why delete “citizenship benefits”? Isn’t this the “Citizenship and Immigration Service”?
The UCSIS does not give benefits. It administers a process. The benefits are derived from the associated legislation.
Steve Kopits: Are you serious about information? Well, I’ve had to deal with immigration — I need to know what to correctly write in a letter to them, and so I hope I get the right information from them about what needs to be in a letter. Also, I’d like to know how many cases they adjudicate in a year — actual data, as opposed to Trumpian “enormous” or get that information quickly, as opposed to a Trumpian “in a very short period of time” (which usually means never — still waiting on the information on Melania’s immigration process).
Benefits of citizenship I think are not the pecuniary benefits, but if you become a citizen, can you vote, etc.
As for benefits of citizenship, I think this is intended as an over-acrching statement, and is interpreted so as both the USCIS and the immigrant.
The benefits of citizenship include, of course, the right to vote, but as well social services and just the benefit of living in a prosperous and well-managed country (well, at least is used to be). I think everyone is reasonably clear about that.
This post holds the current lead in the Most Nitpicked category for 2018.
The year is young, nitpickers. Believe that you can soar even higher. When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: “Today is a good day to nitpick.”
Hey, nitpicky post, nitpicky comments.
Menzie –
I am no great fan of mission statements, but as a management consultant, I have written a few over the years. So let’s take a look at the old USCIS statement again:
“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers…” We see three mistakes in this first segment.
Let’s focus on the accurate and useful information bit.
Ordinarily, in a mission statement, we would put the primary activity first. It is a mission statement after all. The way the sentence section is written, it creates the impression that USCIS is primarily in the business of providing useful and accurate information.
Let’s try a variant, to see how this might sound from another organization:
“Ford secures America’s promise as a nation of drivers by providing accurate and useful information about model offerings, features and pricing to our customers…”
Now, this is absolutely true. Ford does a lot of this. However, we would be somewhat surprised to find that Ford felt this was their primary activity, just as I am surprised that USCIS considers itself first and foremost as an immigration help desk.
As a consultant, this would prompt a series of follow-on questions. For example:
– What percent of USCIS’s activities relate to information requests? By staff numbers or hours of labor. By expenditure. By revenue (‘customers’ usually pay you.
Are USCIS information requesters paying USCIS for this service?) Perhaps by public perception. Is the organization really in the help desk business?
– If it is in that business, why? If you’re spending that much time fielding questions, maybe you need a better website, or to streamline and clarify the immigration process. This would ordinarily prompt a consultant to see if there is a follow-on consulting opportunity.
So, it’s not that the USCIS should not answer questions. They should, by all means. It is just that placing answering questions at the front of the queue suggests that this is their primary activity. If it is, they need a process engineering and website consultant to upgrade their workflows.
Steven Kopits: Just looking at the USCIS website, what they do each day:
We adjudicate more than 26,000 requests for various immigration benefits.
We process 3,700 applications to sponsor relatives and future spouses.
We process 200 refugee applications around the world and grant asylum to 45 individuals already in the United States.
We screen 146 people for protection based on a credible fear of persecution if they return home.
We answer 50,000 phone calls to our toll-free customer service line and serve 2,200 customers at informational appointments in our 86 domestic field offices.
We ensure the employment eligibility of more than 80,000 new hires in the United States.
We fingerprint and photograph 13,000 people at 137 Application Support Centers.
We approve applications and petitions to help unite 25 foreign-born orphans with the Americans who want to adopt them.
We grant lawful permanent residence to approximately 2,100 people and issue approximately 7,000 Green Cards.
We receive 335,000 visitor sessions to our website.
We welcome nearly 2,000 new citizens at naturalization ceremonies. Typically, 36 of these new citizens are members of the U.S. armed forces.
Seems like accurate information provision is (was) pretty high up on the list.
If I convert these numbers to manhours, then I come up with something less than 5% for information calls, in-person visits and website visits in aggregate.
Steven Kopits: Curious how you came up with that number – I can imagine some meetings with immigration officials could take a long time. I think I got some relatives I can ask (maybe your processing was faster?).
Took the number of events and imputed time per event.
Now, if keeping telephone callers on hold is part of their mission, then sure, information services are probably 80% of what they do.
As for processing my immigration application:
17 years from application to acceptance.
13 years from residency to citizenship
Steven Kopits: Sorry, I was perhaps unclear. How long was your typical meeting with immigration officers? You need that to “impute” time use, yes?
And we were on hold the entire time.
I used 30 min on average for a meeting.
2200 informational visits, even at 1 hour each, is the equivalent of one FTE, in terms of gross hours.
And that, my friends, is plumbing the depths of nitpicky.
And that, my friends, is plumbing the depths of nitpicky.
And that, my friends, is a white man from Europe exercising his immigrant privilege.
Who cares? We don’t need any more people in the US. We have plenty and we certainly don’t need more poor people with no skills.
Actually, that’s not true. At any given time, an economy needs a portfolio of skills. Your brain surgeon needs someone to clean his house, mow his lawn and get his coffee at Starbucks. Sure, he could mow his own yard, but at $1000 / hour, maybe you want someone less skilled.
As for more people, right now, we are facing a bit of a demographic crisis heading into the 2020s. WIthout migrants (maybe even with them) you should budget payroll taxes rising to about 23% of wages, from 15.3% now.
And you can thank, in part, the Republicans for that.