In the heartland of Oklahoma City, Gerardo Beltran, an immigrant entrepreneur hailing from Mexico, conveyed a sense of disappointment from within his food truck. The recent weeks have seen a decline in his business, a direct consequence of the current climate keeping people away from the outdoors and public venues.
The background to the current state of affairs is colored by the intensified focus on immigration law and policy leading up to the recent Presidential inauguration. This spotlight has led to widespread actions across the country addressing immigration, stirring fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities everywhere, even those situated far from the main hubs.
Oklahoma City, typically far-removed from this national tension, now echoes the sentiment of its large metropolitan counterparts. The mere possibility of immigration raids is a source of apprehension among its residents, especially those who have been staying here without the legal provisions, but have otherwise been law-abiding citizens.
This fear of being inadvertent ‘collateral damage’ has made its way deeply enough into the fabric of the city, causing numerous members of the Latino community to stage a public demonstration near the state Capitol. The anxiety increases as policy changes demand schools to report the number of undocumented students, putting the future of these children in the balance.
The rally participants called out state leaders like Ryan Walters and Governor Kevin Stitt and criticized their governorship, alluding to their ‘anti-immigrant’ policies. This sentiment was carried on placards and signs held by those who gathered, reflecting a collective voice against the current state of affairs.
The climate of fear has markedly intensified under the current administration, due in part to changes in certain policies that would have acted as safeguards for undocumented immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security’s more fluid stance on operating in ‘sensitive locations’ like schools and churches adds to this fear, causing immense unrest in communities.
Worries among the congregators thrum with the threat of ‘collateral damage.’ A scenario where enforcement agencies cast a broad net, potentially impacting everyone within their reach, is a fear commonly discussed even during Sunday services.
In response to the growing concern, local authorities assure that citywide practice remains unchanged even under the current administration’s immigration policies. They persist in their stance, stating that any shifts or alterations to current policy would be addressed in due time.
In sharing his own immigration journey from Mexico in 1978, a local resident invoked biblical teachings to underline the complexity of the situation. While preaching about respecting and obeying authorities, he also recognized the human aspect and promised to support those who, like him, find themselves in a difficult spot.
It is noted that decreasing deportation patterns coincided with Obama’s first term in office. The driving factor behind this dip was the adoption of sanctuary city policies which reduced cooperation between local enforcement bodies and federal immigration actions.
According to Ana Pottratz Acosta, an immigration law professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, the stark differences in handling prosecutorial discretion under successive administrations have significantly impacted immigrant communities. While the Biden administration used discretion to consider individual circumstances in removal cases, contrasting approaches have resulted in different outcomes during President Trump’s term.
Moreover, the implementation of ‘humanitarian parole authority’ under Biden’s charge was significant since it provided lawful avenues for asylum seekers or those fleeing unrest in their home countries. However, these efforts are often downplayed and ridiculed, seen as ‘opening the borders.’
The rhetoric adopted by different regimes inevitably affects the immigrant communities’ perception and sense of security. The harsh tone and actions of the Trump administration led to an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, with subsequent administrations doing little to alleviate these concerns.
Interestingly, there’s perceivable backing for the stern immigration policies among some sections of the immigrants themselves. This points towards a division within communities; even those ostensibly affected seem to support the tough rules.
The paradoxical scenario presents a complex situation. Long-term residents without necessary documents but who made significant contributions to local economy and society, be it owning businesses or homes, find themselves in a precarious position due to these stricter policies.