Deep breath – an attempt, before tonight’s speech,  at a dispassionate appraisal of President Trump’s actions regarding immigration.

GOOD: he has kept DACA in place so far. Of course, if you are one of the “deplorables” who believed he should follow through religiously on every campaign vow, you are disappointed.

GOOD: his priority will be to deport the estimated 700,000 illegal immigrants who happen to be felons. Uh, Obama had the same priority, so Trump gets no incremental credit. But it would be nice if immigration advocacy groups applauded the removal of criminals; after all, they adversely affect the optics of the overall immigration situation.

Similarly, advocates might convey an understanding of what is more than a nuance, namely that rates of change affect attitudes, e.g. if the Hispanic percentage rises gradually in a particular locale, there is not the angst that occurs when the proportion climbs sharply. There is an adjustment in the former instance: there is real, everyday human interaction as opposed to ill-informed sloganeering about who is taking which jobs.

BAD: the border wall idea – a lousy return on investment; better, if greater enforcement is the goal, to put money into people (which he is doing as well actually) and technology, not bricks and mortar. Even better, relax a touch, there has been no net immigration from Mexico in the past few years.  That is not to say that the criminality aspect itself is of no consequence.  According to the “Economist” (2-24-17) Latin America and the Caribbean, representing 9% of the world’s population, account for one-third of all murders. There are some 20 million individuals in what the Brits call the “NEET” category: not employed or pursuing education or being trained. Not good.

REALLY BAD: Through multiple actions, telling illegal immigrants that they are not safe in this country, even if they have been here for years. If there was a dragnet pick-up and deportation of ten+ million hard-working people (who often occupy jobs that the rest of us would not take on a bet), inflation would spike and real economic growth would decline, the opposite of what Trump’s economic expansion agenda is intended to accomplish.

Some 41% of Latinos overall now “have serious concerns about their place in America” (Pew Research Center, 2-24-17). A survey from the same source indicates that only 5% of Americans believe that diversity makes the country worse (the number is 10% among conservatives). Both figures, which are counterintuitively below what they were only six months ago, are stunningly low when contrasted with the anti-immigrant energies being deployed by the Trump administration to accomplish something that apparently cannot move the needle much on attitudes.

The United States has capital; it needs to import, not export, people if it wants to have the economic growth level that just might reduce tensions a tad.  Putting billions into an additional 5,000 border patrol and 10,000 ICE agents, adding immigration judges and asylum officers for what purpose? Economically, older people (who skew white) need more younger workers (who skew non-white) to fund the social security coffers which otherwise will run dry.  According to the “Wall Street Journal” (2-23-17), the number of retirees per 100 workers, now 27, will be 48 by 2065. With no immigration, the latter is 56.

In summary, everything Trump has proposed regarding immigration, save maintenance of DACA, works against his desire for faster economic growth.

P.S. Hate does not defeat hate. Civility has been on the decline in the USA for decades; now it is in free fall. Everybody comes armed with an agenda, neatly circumscribed by the size of a poster or the length of a tweet. Productive discourse is minimal. Want to blame Trump – be my guest. The trends were already in place as the country becomes more and more geographically and politically balkanized.

The inability to have dialogue at public gatherings will simply drive even more planning/plotting to closed door deliberations. (Hard to believe in the current environment, but I once picketed a Humphrey rally [Google him—he was an important man] and when he saw me, he smiled and came over, extended his hand, which I shook in a friendly manner.  Full disclosure compels me to add that the person behind me said I was a fascist and tore off a corner of my poster, so it was not perfect civility.)

There is a saying,” liberals love humanity, it’s people they can’t stand.” The latter are not a tidy philosophical construct; they are individuals with their own combinations of beliefs. A person may be against Trump’s position on immigration, in favor of states making their own rules about transgender bathroom access, against further excursions into the Middle East, for a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine, and in favor of an economic policy which keeps more jobs in this country. They may applaud diversity while living in a community that scarcely has any. They might think that learning rudimentary English should be a requirement of anybody coming to the USA to stay.

So what! “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” (Emerson)

You will not have read this expose in the “New York Times,” as neither their controlling shareholders nor their staffers have their children in the affected schools, but –

FOR MANY DECADES, financially challenged urban African-American and Hispanic kids have had virtually no choice but to attend local schools noted for low academic standards and minimal preparation for higher education. Instead, they are being trained to be eager consumers (see John Taylor Gatto’s unreadable book –“The Underground History of American Education — that nonetheless makes the prior valid point) and they learn the finer points of how to get low-paying service jobs in industries importantly catering to the whims and alleged needs of affluent white suburbanites.

Of course, they are not tutored in the particulars of said jobs, like “at will” employment versus being involved in a union contract, or the vagaries of health insurance.  Why would “we” spoil a good thing. We do not want real change, but the guilt part of our psyche does mean that money has been poured into the above schools, with, uh, no discernible impact.

The affluent have always had school choice – it is a function of the thickness of their wallets.  They simply pick up and move to districts offering better educational opportunities. Those with lesser financial resources have been rendered vote-less.  Some “volunteer” to become additionally impoverished — the double whammy of taxes and parochial school tuition. Later, they discover that the first priorities of these schools are “values” and safety, not academic rigor.

Adding to the fraudulent aspect of their schools, the overworked (absurd caseloads) guidance counselors in urban America are not well-versed on that many colleges. Often they resort to default options, like suggesting local two-year colleges or low-cost state schools, which may or may not be appropriate (and would never happen in an affluent area).

In this overall education environment, I am not chagrined to see adverse publicity about various voucher programs, which in aggregate involve a handful of students nationally.  Negative feedback will bring changes in their modus operandi or they will disappear.  In contrast, the neighborhood school down the street in urban America can be under-educating its kids for decades and it lives on, providing nice employment for the adults.

Howard Fuller, the well-known African American education reformer, had it colorfully right more than twenty years ago, “it (changes in our approach to educating those with limited financial resources) ain’t about the research, it’s about the will.”

P.S. High-performing charter schools begin with that will, the passion to deliver a quality education to all students, regardless of their particular backgrounds.