The JOSE and MARIA DILEMMA: A Stepback Analysis
Similar to the challenge faced by every individual or organization which is in a helping mode:
does all the good work change lives, either from an offensive standpoint — moving forward, or a defensive standpoint — avoiding negative results, the question arises:
where are we with respect to Jose and Maria (JM)?
Assume JM attends a church which has received an Information Package (IP). What has the church done with the IP? On the assumption that they broadcast its availability, did JM get an IP? If so, did they use it to create a plan?
Copies of the IP were delivered to Hackettstown businesses, particularly restaurants. What did the recipient do as a result – make copies for staff, use it personally, discard it?
Assume JM submitted an Emergency Relief Fund (ERF) application. Did JM receive an IP?
There had not been thought given to simply handing JM an IP when the applicant came for the brief interview and receipt of money.
In reality, because of its connection to money, not to the IP, ERF quickly had become too popular for contemplation of strategy. And whether simultaneous issuance of an IP would have raised questions, in what was a highly informal setting (a table at a restaurant) that for whatever reason created a trusting situation, cannot be assessed. In any case, subsequently there was an attempt to get JM to come back for an IP, but that had mixed results.
At the ERF interview, these were the questions to JM: what country are you from, how long have you been here, what job do you have, are you married/have kids? The words “legal, immigration, and documentation” never were used. Interestingly, Ecuadorians, here on average a shorter period of time than Guatemalans or Hondurans, were more likely to return for an IP. Overall, if a more explicit phrase (e.g., come for immigration information) had been used in the text invitation to return for an IP, the response would have been greater.
**
On day one of our efforts, when the election results were known, there was a legitimate question: would a long-time undocumented JM step forward to get a lawyer to protect themselves against whatever the new administration had in mind. Given the long list of combinations and variations attached to status, and the vagaries of finding a lawyer, it did not seem likely that JM, functioning quietly for multiple years, would go public as it were.
Fast forward to today: if protected status means nothing, if sanctuaries are negated, if Alien Registration is a Hobson’s Choice, there seems even less reason why JM would step forward and request legal assistance. Instead they would hope and pray that, at the macro level, all the legal efforts by ACLU, the American Immigration Council, et al are successful, and, at the micro level, that ICE does not come for them.
The very nature of the IP is that it has a double personality. The IP, and the various knowledge bases added by the committee, is great material for assisting JM to get prepared for a what-if scenario. Simultaneously, it is material that one hopes never has to be used.
(As a side note, not pertinent to the aforementioned organizations, just when lawyers are needed to fight the excesses of executive actions, many of them have folded their ethical tents. Preservation of million dollar incomes has proven more important than any of their prior high standards. Rather like CEOs, but we have always known that with this group of individuals, there is no surprise when they wrap themselves around whatever policy connects to their bottom line. Khruschev’s comment many years back had more than a kernel of truth to it.)
**
The history of immigration reform efforts is discouraging, to say the least. There is little in the record that is instructive on how to best help JM. Stories of individual and organizational heroism abound but they become almost anecdotal when considered in the context of the big picture. The irony is that, at the end of the day, regardless of any legislation that could be enacted (not in the current environment obviously), if the economies and governing bodies south of the United States cannot provide sufficient jobs to keep people in their home country, JM will find a way to get here.
**
When the undersigned moved to Hackettstown in 2020, I asked respondents to point me to an Hispanic leader. The situation today is unchanged from the initial response: nobody fits the bill. The Hispanic Resouce Center (HRC) always has wanted to have a thought/action partner to myself; that quest has been unsuccessful.
Given that my entire life has been spent functioning independently, with just enough exposure to committees to make me shy away from them, the above set of characteristics (coupled with everything else going on in my life) has led HRC’s pattern to be one of standalone projects where outside skill sets are brought in as needed: the referral data base, a documentary on entrepreneurs, and its role at ERF. Soon to be released will be a streamlined, Spanish-centric version of the referral data base. In the creative thought stage is a documentary with the working title of “The Ecuadorian Exodus.” And there is a high likelihood of a new, more controlled ERF.
**
Immigration has been described as a “trilemma.” People want a legitimate border, companies want workers, and humanitarians want to save everybody.
Consistent with the self-description above, my focus is on helping Jose and Maria. Everything is measured against the metric of whether this is being accomplished. Much work to be done.
Bob Howitt 4-15-25