Archive for the ‘Civic discourse, Political judgment, Public reasoning, Immigration’ Category

“Immigration”

May 8, 2026

*

Ricardo F. Morín
Buffalo Series, Nº 7
36″ x 78″
Oil on canvas
1979

In a public forum, one participant says: “This country was built by people who came from other places and settled here over time.”  Another responds: “People who enter without authorization must be expelled.”  Both statements remain.  No one relates them to one another.   

A participant on one side says: “My parents came here and became citizens.”  From the other side, someone responds: “The law must be applied.”  A third asserts: “There must be order.”  No one asks how those people were received at the time.  The statements remain separate.   

Someone returns to the earlier point: “How was the situation of those people determined when they arrived?”  The interlocutor does not respond.  Another voice responds: “People must come through the proper channel.”  The question does not hold.  The exchange continues from the response.   

From that moment on, each intervention turns toward the application of the law.  No one asks under what conditions that law is applied or to whom it extends.  One insists on borders.  Another rejects politics.  No one asks how the situation of people is determined.  No one asks how those present are classified.  The initial statements remain.  They are not related to one another.

Then one participant repeats the earlier claim: “This country was built by people who came from other places.”  Another repeats: “People who enter without authorization must be expelled.”  For a moment, both statements are held together.  No one determines whether the same conditions apply to both.  No one asks whether one statement limits or includes the other.  The moment passes.  

Those who arrived under earlier conditions and those now subject to controls can be named.  The same terms are not used for both.  

 The phrases continue to appear.  They serve to defend positions and to oppose them.  They do not return to the initial statements.  They allow each participant to adopt a position without relating them.   

In the end, both statements remain:  one is not examined against the other, neither is withdrawn.  They are left in place.  The separation is maintained.  The exchange continues without relating them.  

*

Ricardo F. Morín

April 2026

In transit

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Civic discourse, Political judgment, Public reasoning, Immigration | Leave a Comment »

“That’s What People Voted For”

May 8, 2026

 

Ricardo F Morín
Buffalo Series, Nº 3
32″ x 36″
Oil on canvas
1978

At a town hall, one participant says, “This policy removes access to public services—such as health coverage and housing assistance—for legal residents who have depended on them.”  Another replies at once, “That’s what people voted for.”  Everyone knows the subject is immigration.  No one returns to what is being done.  The exchange shifts.  The reply becomes the center of the discussion. 

In another exchange, someone says, “This measure authorizes the detention of individuals without a hearing while their status is reviewed.”  The reply comes at once: “That’s what people voted for.”  The sentence is not taken up.  The exchange proceeds from the reply. 

A participant to one side says, “It was decided through a vote.”  Across the table, another answers, “That doesn’t justify what it does.”  A third repeats, “That’s what people voted for.”  No one restates the initial sentence in full.  No one asks what the policy does.  The words that gave rise to the discussion no longer guide it. 

Someone tries to return to the sentence.  “Which part of this was voted on?”  The speaker does not answer.  Another voice cuts in: “It reflects the will of the voters.”  What is being done remains unexamined. The phrase remains in use, and the exchange continues from it. 

Then one participant restates the earlier sentence in full: “This policy removes access to public services for legal residents.”  Another replies: “That’s what people voted for.”  For a moment, the sentence and the reply are held together.  No one determines whether the vote addresses what is described.  No one asks whether the reply accounts for the sentence.  The moment passes.  

From that point on, each response addresses only that same reply.  One insists on the vote.  Another rejects that defense.  No one asks who loses access under the policy.  No one asks how the change is carried out.  The sentence no longer directs the exchange.  Green card holders, recipients of deferred status, asylum applicants, and citizens by birth can be named, but they are not brought back into the exchange. 

The phrase is used to defend the decision and to reject its use as justification.  It does not return to the sentence.  It allows each participant to take a position without clarifying what was said. 

At the end, the sentence is not examined, sustained, or withdrawn. It is left behind, and what is being done is not examined.

Ricardo F. Morín
April 2026
In transit

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Civic discourse, Political judgment, Public reasoning, Immigration | Leave a Comment »