In a previous post, and as flagged by reader rtd, I wrote too quickly and did not show the full set of changes to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services mission statement. Apologies for the omission. The wording of the new mission statement — on top of deleting “a nation of immigrants” — are in my mind actually much worse, and I thank rtd for alerting me. Below is a fuller accounting of changes, annotated.
Pre:
“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.”
Edits (red denotes additions):
“
USCISU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servicessecures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, grantingadministers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigrationand citizenshipbenefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”
Post:
“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.”
Questions I have:
- 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?
- 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.)
- Why delete “citizenship benefits”? Isn’t this the “Citizenship and Immigration Service”?
I made a mistake in my earlier post by not quoting the exact language of the new USCIS mission statement. Like a Rorschach test, the new language conveys much information.
Update, 6:11PM Pacific: At almost the same time, Mr. Trump speaks at CPAC on immigration. From transcript.
I don’t want people that are going to come in and be accepting all of the gifts of our country for the next 50 years and contribute nothing. I don’t want that. You don’t want that. I want people that are going to help and people that are going to go to work for Chrysler, who is now moving from Mexico into Michigan. And so many others. And apple, by the way. And fox con in Wisconsin. They’re going to need 25,000 workers. I want people that can come in and get to work and work hard, even if it means a learning period that is fine. But I want people that are going to come in, and work. And I want people that love us, and look at security and they want you to be safe and they want to be safe. I want great people coming into this country. I don’t want people coming in the way they do now. Because I want people that contribute. So this is called — this is called the snake.
And think of it in terms of immigration and you may love it or you may say isn’t that terrible? Okay. If you say isn’t that terrible, who cares. Because the way they treat me, that’s peanuts compared to the way they treat me. Okay. Immigration.
On her way to work one morning, down the path along the lake,
a tender-hearted woman saw a poor, half-hearted frozen snake.
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted, with the dew.
Poor thing, she cried. I’ll take you in. And I’ll take care of you.
Take me in, oh tender woman, take me in for heaven’s sake,
take me in, oh tender woman, sighed the vicious snake.
She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk.
And laid him by her fire side with some honey and some milk.
She hurried home from work that night, and soon as she arrived
she found that pretty snake she had taken in had been revived.
Take me in, oh tender woman, take me in for heaven’s sake.
Take me in, oh tender woman, sighed the vicious snake.
She clutched him to her bosom. You’re so beautiful, she cried.
But if I hadn’t brought you in by now, surely you would have died.
She stroked his pretty skin again, and kissed and held him tight.
But instead of saying thank you, that snake gave her a vicious bite.
Take me in, oh tender woman. Take me in for heaven’s sake.
Take me in, oh tender woman. Sighed the vicious snake.
I saved you, cried the woman. And you’ve bitten me, heavens why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die.
Oh, shut up, silly woman, said the reptile with a grin.
You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.And that’s what we’re doing with our country, folks. We’re letting people in. And it is going to be a lot of trouble. It is only getting worse. But we’re giving you protection like never before.
Snakes.
Menzie you ask “are we to be a nation of immigrants no longer — only the native born can stay?” However, the mission statement is clear that USCIS “administers the nation’s lawful immigration system” so unless they’re monitoring something nonexistent, your ‘question’ seems absurd.
I do wonder, just as a thought exercise, what questions you would’ve posed about the prior mission statement. Let us, for a second, assume the earlier statement replaced the newer statement.
E.g.:
Would you question why the USCIS wasn’t concerned with “lawful immigration” and assume it was secretly pursuing to advance unlawful immigration?
Would you question why the USCIS isn’t interested in “efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests”? Why would they allow the wiggle room to be inefficient? Also, why would they not want to be fair to those seeking new opportunities in this nation?
Would you ponder why the USCIS did not intend on “protecting Americans, securing the homeland”? Why would USCIS not seek what is best for the very country it represents (i do understand the irony of this considering who is currently in office, but let us set that aside for this exercise)
Would you now wonder why USCIS regards real human beings who have emotions as nothing more than “customers”? Why degrade the very individuals and families who have hopes of coming to America to potentially better their lives and treat them as nothing more than a transaction?
I’m interested in your thoughts. I do think I prefer the original mission statement but a mix of the two may be preferred.
rtd: The “lawful” immigration system could be (if legislative and executive branches concurred) no immigration allowed, and undocumented expelled. I could then imagine USCIS, border patrol, ICE, efficiently and fairly adjudicating cases in this new legally established regime — kind of like how the bureaucracy establised at the Wannsee conference efficiently and fairly adjucated cases. And I could imagine that the homeland (auf Deutsch, Heimat) could then be secured to some people’s satisfaction.
Aber ich denke “ein Volk, ein Land” ist noch besser.
For those you didn’t selectively ignore, fair enough. But all of the above you e noted can apply to the statement you prefer. You don’t seem to grasp this exercise – maybe I’m to blame for that.
In any case, here’s the answer to your questions:
We are a nation of Americans. A nation of immigrants and non-immigrants but a nation of Americans nonetheless. Let us not label to further divide.
Most anyone would acknowledge that the newly included “safeguarding its integrity…honoring our values“ would likely include “providing accurate and useful information”.
I’ll admit excluding “citizenship“ is rather odd but you answer your own question with a question in asking “Isn’t this the “Citizenship and Immigration Service”?
I always thought that parable was intended for the so-called “moderate” Republicans. You knew he was a snake before you nominated him for president.
Sorry. He’s yours now. You own him. Never, ever let the Republicans forget. You are Trumpists.
Agreed but I don’t think many (most?) of the Republicans have forgotten. More importantly (and unfortunately) however, they don’t seem to (yet) be regretting their ownership.
Certainly possible we could see a change in, say, the welcoming verses at the Statue of Liberty.
Maybe something catchy and of instant appeal to Trumpers.
How about
Give me your wealthy, your energetic, your deal makers
Yearning for ever lower taxes
Send these successful moguls (preferably Norwegians )
Who can expand their portfolios while spurning government handouts but not subsidies
While enriching our golden shores.
WOW. I’ve been offline most of today and watching sports. I’m assuming NYT and other major outlets have taken note of this CPAC speech?? Other than Stephen Miller, who else is still officially on Trump’s staff that would have even drafted this?? Much less let the bastard go ahead and speak it out?? This “vicious snake” wording is similar to the “rats” propaganda they used in Germany. This is the worst crap we’ve heard from a sitting US President since Nixon’s Watergate tapes.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=10007819&MediaId=7395
More detailed and broader explanation here: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007819
@Menzie, Both of the above two links are from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, so I think they are safe to use as far as accuracy.
Good job at redlining. While I always hated redlining, at least it satisfied rtd. We hope. The entire Trump speech was both dishonest and repugnant. I would quote the 1st sentence as a clear example of how he lied. But then by doing so, rtd might accuse me of misrepresenting what he said. Sorry I cannot endure any more of this.
I would change the last line to: “You knew damn well I was Trump before you took me in.”
We’ve allowed too many poor unskilled legal and illegal immigrants, and their relatives and offspring, into the country. They tend to vote Democrat and drive down wages in low wage jobs. With offshoring eliminating middle wage and capital intensive jobs, many prime-age men dropped out of the workforce. The U.S. is labor intensive and capital abundant. Those men don’t have the skills for the high paying labor intensive jobs, and their reservation wages are too high for the low paying labor intensive jobs. We have a very dumb immigration policy, particularly compared to other countries.
We need high skilled immigrants. There are many high skilled immigrants, who want to immigrate to the U.S., and do it properly and legally, but our immigration laws don’t allow it! However, we allow low skilled immigrants and their families to barge into the country and demand they stay! We practice an illegal and unfair immigration system.
There are more Hispanics in California than white citizens, although many Hispanics consider themselves white. What happened to diversity? There are many Europeans, who cannot legally immigrate to the U.S.. Nonetheless, what matters is bringing high skilled immigrants into the country from various countries for more diversity.
The labor of poor unskilled immigrants—most undocumented—helped build the US into a world power. Hard to imagine the US of the 20th century without them.
During the Industrial Revolution, European immigrants came to the U.S. legally. They had roughly the same skill level as the domestic population. Many of them were farmers, like the domestic population, and moved into manufacturing. The domestic population and immigrants soon surpassed the Industrial giants of the time – Great Britain and Imperial Germany.
During the height of the Information Revolution, the U.S. was already the dominant world power. Domestic high skilled labor with legal immigrant high skilled labor moved the U.S. further ahead. The flood of poor and low skilled legal and illegal immigrants, with their families, displaced domestic low skilled labor, along with government services. However, many were harder workers willing to work for less.
This “vicious snake” wording is similar to the “rats” propaganda they used in Germany. This is the worst crap we’ve heard from a sitting US President since Nixon’s Watergate tapes.
I don’t know where you have been for the last two years, but Trump has been reciting this story at every campaign stop and rally since the beginning of 2016. He must have told it a couple hundred times, to rousing cheers by the xenophobes and racists each time.
I’m shocked that there are still people who are just coming to the realization that Trump is a neo-Nazi.
Menzie
The answers to your questions are all the same. And that same answer is derived from the word found in the previous mission statement and not found in the present mission statement; you would say deleted but, not surprisingly, you did not highlight it. That word is “customers” and it demonstrates the fundamental difference of philosophy between the last administration and the current. The past administration saw their fidelity was to non-American immigrants, the customers, and the current administration sees its fidelity is to the American citizen and will enforce the laws they legislated. This difference was well debated during the last election and was certainly one of the main issues which lead to President Trump’s victory. It is only right and proper that this preference of the citizenship be honored in action. Legal immigration will be subject to greater scrutiny for both security and benefit to American citizen while still recognizing and honoring the legal procedures of immigration.
I will end with a question of my own. There was another phrase that, in your words, was deleted but not highlighted by your questions. That phase is the start of the previous mission statement, “USCIS secures America’s promise” part of your highlighted “as a nation of immigrants “.
What exactly is America’s promise and where is it defined?
In my next post I will quote 3 possibilities.
Ed
This difference was well debated during the last election and was certainly one of the main issues which lead to President Trump’s victory.
The voters and citizens actually voted for Clinton. And by a large difference. It was the Electoral College that voted for Trump. Trump’s policies represent the Electoral College, not the majority of voters.
slug
Unfortunately, I am not surprised that you do not understand and respect some of the differences between a democracy and a republic with democratic institutions. The US Presidential election consists of 51 separate elections, and whoever receives more than 50% of all the different state’s electoral votes, becomes the President. That is how the will of the electorate is determined (simplified to facilitate your understanding). So sad that you do not know this and do not realize that the electoral college system is an excellent balance between states with large and small populations..
Ed
Ed Hanson I didn’t say Trump was a legitimately elected President. I simply pointed out that the citizen voters did not elect Trump. It was the Electoral College that elected the bum. There are lots of leaders who are recognized as legitimate leaders even if most citizens don’t vote for them. For example, Erich Honeker was recognized as the legitimate leader of the old GDR. And of course Trump’s good buddy Vladimir Putin is the legitimate leader of Russia.
correction: I didn’t say Trump was not a legitimately elected President.
Ed, the people didn’t choose Trump. The system did. Trump is obviously bothered by this fact. Otherwise, how do you explain his insistence he would have won the popular vote—I.e., vote of the people—had it not been for all those illegal voters he claims were the difference?
The electoral vote debates, as you may know, dates at least from 1800. In cases where the popular vote winner loses the election, the electoral vote winner usually has an extra burden to bear.
Three possible America’s promise presented in chronological order.
(1)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
-Opening lines of the Declaration of Independence-
(2)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-Preamble to the Constitution of the United States-
(3)
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
-The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus, 1849 – 1887-
Please note that none of the 3 have force of law behind them, but the first 2 are from foundation documents while the third is not but found inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.
From possibility (1) please observe the following words within it “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter”; that is what the past election did in regard to the philosophy of immigration – “alter”.
From possibility (2) please observe the following words within it, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; again the government’s fidelity is to “We the People” and “ourselves and our Posterity”. That means to the citizenship of America.
From possibility (3) please observe the following words within it,
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Marvelous expression for the times when America needed to fill its empty spaces during time of no or little government welfare. (And sorry Steven Kopits, this does ignore your excellent observation of America’s promise not extended to Native Americans. It point was well made and pertinent.) But today is no longer that time. And unfortunately with illegal immigration being ignored and/or tolerated by the last 4 administrations, the pressure has been extended to legal immigration.
Ed
Ed Hanson Actually, the words of the Preamble were meant to address the problems of the Articles of Confederation. The phrase “…a more perfect union” was understood to contrast political union with a political confederation. And the phrase “We the People” was not understood as being synonymous with “We the Citizens.”
The solution to illegal immigration is simple. Just make it legal and dramatically raise the number of immigrants allowed each year. We need more immigrants, not fewer.
Warren Buffett: “It isn’t a question of being a businessman, it’s a question of being a human being”
https://youtu.be/PV_3hKAH3rQ?t=1m35s
If you want to rewind to the start of the above Youtube video, Buffett also discusses what he sees as the best answer to the question of the minimum wage. I think Warren Buffett often has some good ideas on government policy, this seems like one of the better ideas.
Now, I’m going to say something that partly undermines my own argument, (the argument that we should enact some of Buffett’s policy prescriptions)—–
I don’t see Buffett as the “sweet old Uncle” that he works so hard to portray himself as. He owns many businesses that use predatory loans on low-income people. Or just out-and-out ignores their minorities’ financing needs. You can see that at his Clayton Homes business and mortgage brokers that are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway. Mortgage brokers are not regulated by the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). So they play under different rules than the banks.
Some of that is detailed in this story, where there is a small profile done on Trident Mortgage Group (a mortgage broker) that is owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. I doubt if “sweet old Uncle Warren” spends much time crying over these black people’s troubles, much less consternating over how, as the head of Berkshire, he could do a lot to facilitate these black families getting loans.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/blacks-and-latinos-say-they-have-trouble-getting-home-loans-in-philadelphia-heres-whats-happening
Nevermind all the shenanigans at Wells Fargo and JP Morgan (that Buffett owns). But, having said all that, that again, undermines my own argument, he does often have good policy ideas when he is trying to come across as the sweet old man for PR reasons. Just because Buffett is a master of marketing himself on TV as “sweet old Uncle Warren”, doesn’t mean he isn’t often right on the policy prescriptions he sincerely or insincerely makes.
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?
We don’t need more people. Immigration should go to zero.