Friday, November 1, 2024

Scholars, Activists, Teachers, Public Intellectuals, and Authors Chenjerai Kumanyika and Demetrius Noble On the Valuable Lessons From Decades of Black and Palestinian Organizing and Solidarity Movements

 
No. 5
Fall 2024
 
Lessons From Decades of Black and Palestinian Organizing
 
How activists are building solidarity in battleground states and beyond.


AUTHORS:



Chenjerai Kumanyika


Demetrius Noble



Black supporters of Palestine stand in solidarity with Palestinians in calling for a cease-fire and a free Palestine, Washington, D.C., Nov. 4, 2023. Photograph by André Chung for Hammer & Hope.

Solidarity with Palestine wasn’t always an obvious commitment for advocates of racial empowerment or for Black radicals. Well into the 1960s, many leading Black political organizations, churches, and other influential groups identified the plight of European Jews and the founding of the state of Israel as a spiritual allegory and visionary political program for Black liberation. Black Christian Zionism drew on the Old Testament’s narrative of Exodus, promising spiritual and material rewards if Black congregations blessed Israel, cast as the nation of God’s chosen people. Not just iconic Negro spirituals such as “Go Down, Moses,” “Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho,” and “Wade in the Water” but even reggae music used the biblical story of the Jews as a central metaphor. Israeli institutions actively encouraged and strategically nurtured these views. In 1962, Israel’s consul in Atlanta sent a letter to the foreign ministry addressing Israeli policy toward African Americans: “Our first goal must be, in my opinion, filling the gap in [their] knowledge and clarifying the eternal connection between the Jewish people and their country.” The consul made it clear that Black college students would be an especially important target for this project while recognizing that Israeli officials would face accusations of “discrimination” for reaching out to them on integrated college campuses. He noted that the concentration and isolation of Black college students in southern HBCUs allowed Israel “special access” to this sector, however.

Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. were high-profile and influential signifiers of Black empowerment and thus attractive targets for Israeli public relations. Many Israelis were anxious to bring King to their country to strengthen “connections to black leadership,” though the Atlanta consul recommended in a 1962 memo to the Israeli embassy in D.C. that the matter of an invitation was best shelved for the moment, as he represented "the militant wing of the civil rights movement.” King’s perspectives on Israel were complex and constantly evolving, but even without visiting Israel he insisted on its right to exist on several occasions.

For more radical Black nationalists, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Paul Robeson, and in the emerging Black Power movement, there were other reasons to support Zionism. It was a compelling example of a diasporic political consciousness, and some idealized the collective tradition of the kibbutz as a model for anti-capitalist socialist nation building. On top of this, by the 1960s Israel had made significant progress in a strategy to counter Arab influence on the African continent by providing humanitarian aid and development infrastructure in exchange for legitimacy. With the cooperation of Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana was meant to be a showcase of Israel’s aid to Africa, and by 1963 there were 22 Israeli embassies across the continent. But across the Atlantic the tide was slowly turning. In 1964, Malcolm X traveled from Egypt to Gaza and met and prayed with Palestinian religious leaders. Several days later, he published a scathing critique of Zionism that identified it as a colonial threat to the entire Third World.

One person paying attention to these developments was Ethel Minor, who worked as a secretary and office manager at Malcolm X’s Organization of Afro-American Unity. Earlier in the 1960s, Minor had connected with Palestinian students while studying at the University of Illinois at Urbana, and while in Colombia she met with Palestinians who had fled there to escape Israel’s occupation of Palestine after the Nakba in 1948. In Colombia, Minor had worked as a journalist, organizer, and translator, and by the explosive summer of 1967, she had taken over as communications director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a role she used to push a number of leaders toward a profound shift in their analysis of Israel.

In the wake of Malcolm X’s assassination, she convened a reading group, whose members included Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael) and Jamil Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown). They read a book a month — by Zionist authors such as Herzl and Ben-Gurion, Arab authors who supported Palestinian liberation, and Jewish authors critiquing the Zionist and militaristic expansion of Israel based on Jewish spiritual principles — and then met for discussion. Roughly two years into the reading group, Israel launched an airstrike in Egypt, leading to the Six-Day War, a conflict between Israel and a coalition of Arab states over Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran. Israel exploited the alliance among Jordan, Syria, and Egypt to support its narrative of being vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. The death tolls told a different story: fewer than 1,000 Israelis were killed in the war, compared with more than 15,000 Arabs. The body count rose as Israel used the Six-Day War to expand its occupation of Palestine’s West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip, resulting in the forced or pressured expulsion of around 300,000 Palestinians.

Minor already supported Latin American anticolonial struggles and was deeply committed to an internationalist view of Black liberation. But the reading she and the rest of the group did solidified their sense that their analysis of settler colonialism and their definition of racial empowerment had been insufficient. Racial empowerment must not stop at national boundaries or the limits of racial liberalism. They joined Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, and anticolonial revolutionaries across the globe in their critique of Israel’s policies, culminating in publication of “The Palestine Problem,” a two-page primer critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and Zionism, in the SNCC newsletter’s June–July 1967 issue.

The reading group also discussed Israel’s enduring relationship with South Africa’s apartheid regime. Israel had been supplying weapons to apartheid South Africa since the 1960s. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador based in Pretoria, said, “We created the South African arms industry.” Israel also provided arms to the U.S.-supported oppressive regimes in Nicaragua, Argentina, and Honduras, among other countries. Ture explained in his memoir, “Discovering that the government of Israel was maintaining such a long, cozy, and warm relationship with the worst enemies of black people came as a real shock.”

What Ture and his comrades recognized are the common mechanisms of oppression among Palestinians, South Africans, Black Americans, and Jews. Activists in SNCC and the Black Panthers eventually came to understand how movements that seem spatially distant and politically distinct are in fact structurally and materially linked, and they understood how these shared fates could be the basis of a transnational, more effective solidarity launched against the root causes of their mutual oppression.

Today this kind of transnational solidarity is once again on the rise. The Black antiwar left and racial justice advocates see the horrors of Israeli occupation and genocide and recognize the racism, apartheid, and juridical, military, and rhetorical structure of all settler-colonial projects. The endless pulse of state-sponsored murder, the savage enforcement of displacement and segregation, the denial of the right to resist oppression, and the gleefully dehumanizing racist tropes our opponents wield create a savage clarity that cuts across regional specificity and historical differences in Black and Palestinian struggles. Early expressions of this kind of solidarity were visible during and after the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Mo., with Palestinian and Black organizers supporting each other across continents. Cori Bush, who participated in those efforts, said that communications between racial justice activists in the U.S. and organizers for Palestinian liberation informed how she approached these issues as a representative in Congress.



Black supporters of Palestine at a rally in Washington, D.C., Nov. 4, 2023. Photograph by André Chung for Hammer & Hope.

The sort of solidarity Bush describes is not simply about moral indignation at state-sponsored violence, nor is it a kind of transactional expression of mutual support. Instead it reflects the insights of SNCC organizers from decades ago. It is rooted in the recognition of shared material conditions of oppression, including connections direct and plain to the naked eye. Three years before the Ferguson uprising, St. Louis County police chief Tim Fitch was part of a delegation of law enforcement officials that participated in a weeklong training in Israel in 2011. During the Ferguson protests in August 2014, Palestinian American journalist Mariam Barghouti pointed out that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shot tear-gas canisters produced by the U.S. company Combined Systems Inc. at Palestinians a few days before the same tear gas was used on protesters in the United States. Ferguson helped demonstrate to activists at home and abroad that racism, white supremacy, and Zionist occupation are not isolated threats faced by distinct groups. They are inseparable components of a broader imperial structure — one that profits from violence across the world, whether it’s selling weapons to the Israeli military or to the U.S. police departments that dominate poor and Black neighborhoods.

Across the United States today, organizers are translating these connections between struggles at home and around the world into radical and practical programs for action. In Georgia, activists fighting for housing justice, against genocide and occupation, and for the protection of green spaces in Atlanta all find themselves facing transnational networks of police power and the funneling of tax dollars into so-called cop cities, an increasingly popular infrastructure of counterinsurgency. The Atlanta Housing Justice League sees how both the mass displacement of Black and brown communities in Atlanta (there were 144,000 eviction filings in Metro Atlanta in 2023) that it is organizing against and the displacement of Palestinians by the Israeli occupation rely on state-backed racist violence. The league notes that eviction enforcement often relies on “escalation tactics intended for war zones,” and the Atlanta Police Department learned several such tactics from the Israeli police through the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange. Its demands are clear: “We must divest from Cop City, divest from corporate landlords, and divest from Israeli apartheid.”

The financial firm BNY Mellon has offices in Atlanta and is one of the corporate landlords that are opponents of the Atlanta Housing Justice League. BNY Mellon directly profits from the genocide in Palestine through its investments in Elbit Systems and manages the Friends of Israel Defense Forces Donor Advised Fund. Elbit, Israel’s largest weapons company, produces drones, bullets, technology, and white phosphorus for Israel.

BNY is also one of the most prominent investors in Atlanta’s residential housing market. Taking advantage of the Covid-19 economic crisis, BNY and other large corporate landlords steadily bought more and more residential housing stock throughout the pandemic until they accounted for 53 percent of buyers of single-family rental properties by mid-2021. This increase in purchasing occurred predominantly in Black neighborhoods, where rent prices climbed. As rent increased, so did evictions. Displacement by eviction is a common feature of the financialization of rental housing and an outcome corporate investors in this sector anticipate; it is a key step in gentrification’s racial transition. As properties get more expensive, neighborhoods get whiter, and corporate landlords get richer, affordable housing becomes scarcer. The core counties of Metro Atlanta — Dekalb, Fulton, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett — eliminated 130,000 units priced under $1,000 a month in the past five years, largely due to gentrification. Shared mechanisms of oppression dovetail as BNY Mellon profits from displacing working-class Black families and the mass killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians.

In Pennsylvania, the Philly Palestine Coalition has fought against two major weapons manufacturers based in the state. One is Ghost Robotics, whose flagship product is the Vision 60, an unmanned quadrupedal vehicle commonly known as a “robot dog” that has been deployed in Gaza, where its sensors can collect targeting data for weapons systems. Ghost Robotics is housed at the University of Pennsylvania’s Pennovation Center, and it’s one of several companies that received significant tax breaks as part of a Keystone Innovation Zone, touted as a program to foster business development in underserved areas. But the tax credits that benefit Ghost Robotics and other companies would otherwise have gone into the city’s budget and could have helped to fund abandoned public schools and other resource-starved public infrastructure and social programs. This extraction from the city’s budget is just a fraction of the enormous tax breaks that Penn already receives as one of the largest real estate holders in the city.

Similar links are being exposed by North Carolina Black Workers for Justice (BWFJ), founded in 1981 by a group of women employed in the low-wage retail sector. BWFJ calls on “all African Americans to recognize and examine the connection between the Black struggle for self-determination here in America and that of the Palestinian people” and urges all workers to join the National Labor Network for a Ceasefire.

The Southern Workers Assembly, a network of labor organizations that includes BWFJ, facilitated a series of online political education workshops, panels, and in-person worker schools hosted in Charlotte, N.C., to heighten class consciousness and build rank-and-file power to fight fascism and empire. This education initiative centers the nine-point Southern Worker Power Program and aims to foster cadre development among non-union workers, who account for 90 percent of wage and salary workers in the U.S. This education equips those workers with the analysis and tools to forge solidarities across workplaces, employers, and borders to fight corporations, the austerity unleashed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and the American ruling class’s stalwart commitments to expanding theaters of war.

Nearly 60 years after Ethel Minor pushed SNCC to think differently about Palestine and 10 years after Ferguson erupted in Black Lives Matter chants, solidarity with Palestine has become one of the most militant and popular expressions of leftist politics across the globe. Black and Palestinian organizers and racial justice advocates continue the vital tradition of fighting together across borders.

But the conditions have changed over the past decades in ways that make this work both more urgent and more complicated. In the 1960s, the liberal and conservative wings of the ruling class agreed that the best way to counter the upsurge in Black militancy crystallized by the fiery waves of urban rebellions as well as the revolutionary internationalist impulses growing among the Black left would be to supplant these tendencies with the concomitant programs of Black capitalism and Black electoral representation. Scholar and activist Robert L. Allen contended in Black Awakening in Capitalist America that the consistent recourse to riots as an articulation of Black protest forced the ruling class to concede that “Blacks must be brought into the mainstream of the economy if they no longer would remain docile while confined outside of it.”

Over time, Democrats and Republicans have continued to mask their paltry programs for Black liberation with high-profile Black politicians, entertainers, businesspeople, and other figures who stand in as examples of successful racial uplift and progress. This year’s DNC stage featured a parade of Black leaders. But their presence, and the jingoistic praise of American democracy in many of their speeches, amplified a neoliberal form of Black empowerment that drowned out the Uncommitted delegates chanting “Cease-fire now!”

Campaign strategists for Kamala Harris would have us think that the most viable model for solidarity is the Democrats’ much-touted big tent to save democracy. This tenuous coalition is an exercise in political expediency and aims to suspend irreconcilable ideological and political differences in order to forge a united front with disaffected Republicans, conservative lawmakers, and right-leaning independents and save American democracy from Donald Trump. Accepting this flawed political calculus casts solidarity with Palestine as a single-issue distraction that places American democracy at risk by clearing the runway for right-wing authoritarianism. It also ignores the possibility that there may be a better and more reliable path to the White House, one that runs through the solidarity-building organizing efforts and communities discussed above, which are forging real power in critical battleground states. Polling data certainly suggests this is the case as an overwhelming majority of the voting electorate — Democratic, Republican, and Independent — support a permanent cease-fire.



PHOTO: Tens of thousands of Palestinians and their supporters march to the White House to protest U.S. funding of Israel’s war on Gaza, Washington, D.C., Nov. 4, 2023. Photograph by André Chung for Hammer & Hope.

Advocates who continue to push Democrats on the Palestinian question, however, are told that they are advancing a naïve and politically costly moral position with potentially disastrous consequences for the fight against white supremacy and fascism. Put simply, Trump and the Republican extremists create the sense that the stakes are too high for solidarity. Razor-thin polling margins in this election have allowed Democrats to supercharge the identity politics shell game of elite Black empowerment and shut down critics with a new ultimatum: Black folks must choose a Black female candidate over her openly fascist conservative opponent as the most strategic means of advancing antiracist politics.

On the surface, it appears they have a point. Another Trump term promises to be a boon to far-right racist, xenophobic, and heterosexist extremism. Yet the administration currently facilitating Palestinian destruction presents itself as Palestinians’ best hope, a paradoxical alternative that reflects how impoverished a choice we face. So we must remember that all history is the history of class struggle. It does not simply encompass the succession of presidents and the oscillation from Democrats to Republicans and vice versa, but rather how we confront and clash with either side of this oppressive duopoly on various interlocking fronts.

The pain, fear, and conviction that we are feeling can make it hard to tolerate the disagreements and different views about how much and what kind of solidarity matches this moment. But building powerful, effective coalitions requires that we find the patience and commitment to do precisely that. Justified concerns have been voiced by Black queer and trans activists working with the National Trans Visibility March, Center on Halsted, and other organizations who are rightly concerned about Trump’s plans to cut federal funding for inclusive schools, roll back Title IX protections, and pass legislation establishing binary genders assigned at birth as the only genders recognized by the U.S. government. Black immigrant justice groups such as Haitians for Harris have voiced similar concerns. Immigration organizers already busy combating the horrors of Democratic immigration policy are even more fearful of a Republican administration that explicitly promises to incarcerate and deport millions more immigrants. Some Black activists point to the reality of anti-Black racism from some Muslim and Arab people and are unclear about how their solidarity with faraway Palestine helps Black folks in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and back home in America. Unfortunately, Black folks are not immune to the lure of xenophobic nationalist solidarity.

The most instructive ways to address these concerns can be found in the turbulent and generative cauldron of struggle. As the examples of organizing in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina illustrate, core constituents of the Democratic base already recognize the concrete material linkages between their lives and those of Palestinians surviving and resisting Israeli occupation. They understand that this assault and occupation is not a single issue but a widening multitude of terrors. And whether our resistance begins as outrage at the bombing of hospitals and the bottomless heartbreak from tens of thousands of children maimed and murdered or as the frustration of people in hurricane-torn areas who wonder why there is money for bombs but not to rebuild their lives, the connections between oppressed people and places cry out for acknowledgment. Our anger and despair are the subatomic particles of revolutionary commitment.

These nascent political and ethical instincts must be nurtured into bonds of real solidarity. We can’t let a short-sighted electoral calculus seduce us into abandoning the struggle against the common mechanisms of Black and Palestinian oppression. Our shared liberation depends on it, and we cannot risk fracturing into smaller and less powerful factions over the moral and tactical wisdom of voting or not voting. Neither the current administration nor either of the potential incoming presidents will support Black or Palestinian liberation unless they are forced to.

Focusing on the power that we must build to effectively pressure any incoming administration will position us to build a long-term electoral strategy that can reinforce the coalitions and mass movements we organize to fight for the world we want. Rather than getting sidetracked by tactical differences and risk having our movements collapse under the weight of sectarian purity, we must productively harness varying perspectives and orientations toward struggle within the throes of organizing to forge stronger, sharper coalitions. Just as Arab American auto workers in Detroit walked arm in arm with Black workers from the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement in 1973 to pressure the UAW to divest from Israeli bonds, we can build campaigns to put pressure on national organizations with the power to withhold labor and votes on a massive scale that no governing institutions, war machine, or incoming regime can ignore.

Advocates of racial justice may feel forced to place the genocide of Palestinians on a scale, weighing the necessity of fighting for and preserving Palestinian life against the risk of intensifying right-wing fascism on Black life in the United States. Put even more crudely, it’s us or them. But to accept this way of seeing things is to accept false choices between Black and Palestinian liberation or between fighting antisemitism and criticizing Israel. It also means ignoring contradictory realities, particularly the many anti-Zionist Jews who fight in solidarity with Blacks and Palestinians and include Israel in their critical perspectives about settler colonialism and genocide. A clear-eyed and historically informed analysis is needed now more than ever to lay such depraved binaries to waste.



ABOUT THE AUTHORS:


Chenjerai Kumanyika is an assistant professor at NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, a founding member of NYU’s Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, and an at-large council member for the American Association of University Professors. He is the creator and host of Empire City, a podcast that explores the untold origin story of the NYPD. He is also the co-creator, co-executive producer, and co-host of Uncivil, Gimlet Media’s Peabody Award–winning podcast on the Civil War.

Demetrius Noble is a radical cultural worker and a member of Greensboro Revolutionary Socialists. He serves as an adjunct professor in African American and diaspora studies at UNC Greensboro. His work has been published in The African American Review, The Journal of Pan African Studies, The Journal of Black Masculinity, Socialism & Democracy, Works and Days, Cultural Logic, Rampant Magazine, and other leftist publications.

Hammer & Hope is free to read. Sign up for our newsletter, donate to our magazine, and follow us on Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter.


Why Is the Election Between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris So Close?: The Real Meaning and Inherent Limitations of Elections in the United States and What They Can and Cannot Do On Behalf Of Our Collective Liberation

No. 5
Fall 2024
 
Elections Matter, but We Need More Than the Ballot Box to Achieve Collective Liberation
 
We have to build all kinds of power to win.


Hammer & Hope




Illustration by Golnar Adili. Photographs by Abbas Momani/AFP and Erin Lefevre/NurPhoto, via Getty Images.

It’s perpetually election season in the United States, but this one has been especially bizarre and intense. Donald Trump was shot in the ear. Joe Biden mumbled his way through a debate that was his downfall. Kamala Harris fell from a coconut tree and became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. But Harris’s campaign quickly squandered the initial burst of enthusiasm and momentum as it pivoted to courting centrists and trying to outflank the opposition on the military and border security. The first Black and South Asian woman to have a chance at the Oval Office, Harris has tried to position herself as a transformative candidate in the mold of Barack Obama while actually running more like Hillary Clinton, pandering to Wall Street and vowing to include Republicans in her cabinet. This rearranging of the deck chairs on the sinking Democratic ship has unfolded against the backdrop of racist anti-immigrant fearmongering, conspiracy theories and threats of post-election violence, catastrophic heat waves and hurricanes, and the unceasing, enraging, heart-rending genocide in Gaza and devastating strikes across the region.

We don’t know what will happen on Nov. 5, but we do know we can’t afford to ignore elections. Political power matters, and it’s important to understand how it operates — and how we might influence it. That’s why the writers in this issue have taken the time to examine the electoral dilemma from multiple angles. They investigate why this presidential race is so close, dissect Harris’s reactionary appeals to Black men, and examine the strategy that drove the Uncommitted movement. We speak to two former Biden officials who resigned in protest over the administration’s policy toward Israel and Palestine and also look at more participatory alternatives to elections that allow people to vote for policies instead of voting for personalities.

In the end, we know our collective liberation won’t come from the ballot box. There are many other forms of power we need to build and wield if we want to transform society: power in unions, power in the streets, power in deeply rooted community organizing and coalition building. This is the power displayed by the immigrant workers aiding their western North Carolina neighbors in Hurricane Helene’s aftermath and by the patient organizers who have built a multiracial, multifaith network that has helped make Minnesota a progressive stronghold. It’s the power students and faculty are forging on campuses as they begin to repair movement infrastructure destroyed by the far right and band together to fight administrators hellbent on squeezing workers.

There is also power in alternatives, in beginning to build the world we want out of the rubble, planting seeds for future harvests by constructing cooperative enterprises, reconnecting with the land, and trying to create a future free of incarceration. We see this kind of visionary power in the West Bank and in Latin America, where people are creating new systems of agriculture and exchange in order to resist colonization and exploitation. This is the power sought by abolitionist activists who are working to dismantle the prison industrial complex, one of the pillars of the fascist threat now threatening to engulf us.

As essays in this issue reveal, building small-d democratic power — power rooted in solidarity — is never easy. Our organizing efforts have to contend with racism, sexism, mistrust, external attacks, internal conflict, and the common but misguided view that outcomes are always zero-sum. But as an account of the deep connections between Palestinian and Black liberation argues, this kind of solidarity isn’t just a moral imperative; it’s a strategic one. We can save ourselves only if we do the work to save one another.

As academic and activist Donna Murch writes, “Winning is hard, but it is absolutely necessary.” Even if the worst outcome of an all-out takeover by the far right is avoided in the weeks and months ahead, the left can hardly begin to claim victory. To have any hope of actually creating change on a scale that meets the crises that define our time, we need to organize everywhere, building power person by person, day after day in our workplaces, schools, faith centers, neighborhoods, rural communities, local governments, and more. We need a plan that extends far beyond one election cycle, and we need to be realistic and relentless about the monumental effort, insight, compassion, and courage this task requires. Let’s get to work.

Hammer & Hope is free to read. Sign up for our newsletter, donate to our magazine, and follow us on Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter.

https://hammerandhope.org/article/trump-harris-election

No. 5
Fall 2024
 
Why Is the Election Between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris So Close?
 
By refusing to learn from the past, Democrats risk handing the White House back to Trump.

by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor
Hammer And Hope



Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor
 


PHOTO: Supporters of Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Crotona Park in the Bronx, N.Y., May 23, 2024. Photograph by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis, via Getty Images.

In the days and weeks before Americans vote for their next president, Donald Trump has reached deep inside the gutter for his latest stump speech material. He spent much of September insisting that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating the pets of locals. “Illegal Haitian migrants have descended upon a town of 58,000 people, destroying their way of life,” Trump said at a California press conference in September. In his lone presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump claimed, “They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” Even as local officials insisted that nearly all of the Haitian immigrants in Springfield are there legally, Trump promised to organize a large-scale deportation of them anyway. More recently, at a rally in early October, Trump traveled to Aurora, Colo., to rail against immigrants he described as “animals,” “barbaric thugs,” and “sadistic monsters.” As if to make Trump’s point, the campaign adorned the stage with life-size photos of the faces of Latino men.

Trump’s campaign has been fueled by racism, misogyny, and homophobia, a consistent and extraordinary display of bigotry in person and via commercials bombarding swing states across the country. And yet this race is razor close, leaving us to guess who may eventually win. Even as Trump’s campaign has offered little more than racist rants, lies, and a few incoherent economic policies (higher tariffs and eliminating taxes on tips for service workers), he stands as good a chance as Harris of winning the presidency.

How can this be? There are countless polls that show Americans want things that are anathema to the Republican Party and especially to Trump’s agenda. At least 65 percent of Americans believe that the federal government has a “responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care.” More than 50 percent insist that “government aid to the poor does more good than harm.” Nearly 80 percent believe that Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way. Polling by Pew also shows that most Americans believe that the government should do more to help “the needy even if it means going deeper into debt.” Nearly 70 percent of Americans are concerned about the costs of child care, and thus nearly 80 percent support some kind of government-subsidized, affordable-child-care initiative. And overwhelming majorities agree that the U.S. is enveloped in an ongoing housing crisis. More than 60 percent of voters agreed with the statement “Housing is a basic necessity, and the private market is unable to address many Americans’ affordability concerns.” In hurricane-wrecked and Republican-controlled Florida, a recent survey found that a whopping 90 percent of residents believe that climate change is real and 58 percent believe that it’s human-caused. Nearly 70 percent of them want the state and federal governments to do more to address it.

Despite the widespread desires of ordinary Americans for the government to play more of a role in improving their quality of life, Trump and the Republican Party reject these calls for greater public spending and services to help those in need of it. But the Democratic Party has also been reluctant to cast itself as the party for greater government intervention to help with health care, housing, and child care. For more than a generation, the Democratic Party has envisioned itself as jettisoning its reputation as the party of social welfare, most dramatically exemplified by the War on Poverty and the Great Society initiatives, the signature legislation of the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Harris has made some modest proposals like expanding the child tax credit and providing grants for potential first-time homeowners, but none is nearly enough to offset the economic malaise that ordinary people are experiencing right now. It is almost as if the Democrats believed that the sharp personal contrast between the candidates — a white supremacist Trump against a Black South Asian daughter of immigrants — was significant enough to outweigh substantive mention of any other details of why their party should prevail.

But even with these stark distinctions between the candidates, and also between Trump and voter preferences, Harris has struggled to rise in favorability or distinguish herself from Trump in this race, which remains a toss-up. Beyond identity, Harris was slow to fill out her presidential platform with programming to indicate how she would be different from Trump and the president she currently sits behind. When asked on a recent talk show how she diverges from Biden, Harris distinguished herself by highlighting her intention to appoint a Republican to her future cabinet. These kinds of antics threaten to undermine her support with Democratic voters who see themselves as progressives. While Democrats describe Trump as a fascist and Joe Biden went so far as to say that Trumpism and elements of the Republican Party seemed akin to “semi-fascism,” it is odd, as some kind of gesture toward bipartisanship, to insist on putting a Republican in the cabinet. Yet she is reaching for political gimmicks because even with what one could point to as the successes of the Biden administration, like its aggressive efforts to recover from the catastrophic economic effects of the pandemic, these issues have not earned Harris voters any more than they did for Biden.

Since Biden delivered his last State of the Union address in January, the U.S. has enjoyed the highest rate of economic growth, its lowest inflation in the past year, and the strongest wage growth among its peer nations in the G7. Rates of poverty and unemployment have fallen and remain at historic lows. This includes Black workers, who are also experiencing historically low rates of poverty and low rates of unemployment — though they are still higher than for white people. Biden’s presidential campaign was impervious to this supposed economic good news. Indeed, Harris’s run was made possible by the national shrug about Biden’s economic recovery — the so-called vibecession. But the problem was never just vibes. Much of those real material gains were undone by historically high inflation in 2022 that ate into the rising wages that prevailed in the immediate aftermath of the worst of the pandemic as businesses tried to lure workers back. Almost half of Americans say they are not as “well-off now” as they were when Biden took office. Nearly 60 percent say the economy is getting worse. Given the ever-rising costs of essential goods — especially housing, health care, and education — they are not wrong.

Economic uncertainty and insecurity are underwriting some measures of the skepticism confronting Harris’s historic run. She has attempted to distance herself from Biden’s record, but it is difficult to do so when you are the vice president. But the reluctance of some segments of the Democratic Party’s core constituency to embrace Harris points to deeper problems for the Democratic Party. Harris’s weak support among Black voters has been a canary in the coal mine for months but has been ignored on the assumption that Trump’s bigotry would cohere these voters into alignment with Harris. Instead, Black support has continued to be a drag on Harris’s momentum.

Harris continues to poll lower among Black voters compared with Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. She has been stuck at around 80 percent with Black voters who say they will cast ballots for the Democratic candidate in the coming election. Black women are Harris’s biggest supporters, but the 83 percent who say they will vote for her is a notable drop from the historic high of 96 percent who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and even the 91 percent who voted for Biden in 2020. All the efforts of the Democratic Party to cast Harris’s campaign in the same light as Obama’s run in 2008 miss the ways that Obama’s legacy had changed by the end of his second term. By the time Obama left office, he and Michelle Obama might have been personally revered, but many Black voters were disappointed with his underwhelming presidency.

In 2016, with Trump challenging Hillary Clinton, 51 percent of Black people agreed that Obama’s presidency was “one of the most important advances” for Black Americans, but that was down from 71 percent in 2009. Only 37 percent of African Americans thought his administration had improved “race relations.” Last, 52 percent of Black people polled said that Obama’s policies had “had not gone far enough” to help Black people. But the most important barometer of disappointment with Obama’s presidency was the eruption of the Black Lives Matter social movement during the twilight of his administration. The idea that Harris is a revival of the spirit of Obama in 2008 fails to comprehend how the persistence of economic inequality and police abuse and violence created disillusionment at the end of his term. Of course, no one believed that it was Obama’s responsibility to single-handedly undo generations of racial discrimination during a two-term presidency, but when he was running for president in 2007, he obliquely presented his candidacy as the fruition of generations of civil rights struggles. When he traveled to Selma, Ala., in 2007 to give a speech to former leaders of the movement, he said, “We’re in the presence today of giants whose shoulders we stand on, people who battled not just on behalf of African Americans but on behalf of all of America; that battled for America’s soul, that shed blood, that endured taunts.” He added, “I’m here because somebody marched. I’m here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.” Of the previous generation, which he called “the Moses generation,” he said, “They took us 90 percent of the way there. We still got that 10 percent in order to cross over to the other side.” But by 2012, when a chastened Obama was asked whether his administration had done enough for Black businesses in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, he said, “I want all businesses to succeed. I want all Americans to have opportunity. I’m not the president of Black America. I’m the president of the United States of America.”



PHOTO: Supporters waiting for the arrival of Kamala Harris during a campaign rally at the McHale Athletic Center in Wilkes Barre, Pa., Sept. 13, 2024. Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

In a recent poll of 589 Black voters, 84 percent of Democrat-affiliated respondents affirmed that their party “understands the problems of people like me” and 75 percent agreed with the statement that the Democratic Party “can fix the problems facing people like me.” But when confronted with the statement that the Democratic Party “keeps its promises,” only 60 percent agreed. The unresolved crises of both the Obama and then the Biden administrations — namely, persisting economic inequality and the continuing problem of police brutality in Black communities — have shaped many Black voters’ concerns and substantiated the claims that Democrats don’t keep their promises. Consider that nearly three-quarters of Black people in the U.S. believe that the “prison system” was designed “to hold Black people back” and almost 70 percent believe the same thing about the police, according to Pew. Sixty-five percent of Black people believe that “the economic system was designed to hold Black people back.” The numbers are even higher among Black adults with a college degree. The lack of resolution of or even serious engagement with these issues in the race for president has turned into a political crisis that now threatens to undermine Kamala Harris’s campaign. History is not cyclical but is in fact cumulative.

This is a better context with which to understand the small but clearly significant appeal of Trump to some Black men and a modestly increasing number of Black women. Instead of addressing the specific concerns Black voters have with the Democratic Party, Obama took it upon himself to intervene with one of his infamous scolds of a Black audience. In early October, during an election appearance in the swing state of Pennsylvania, he dismissed the erosion of support for Harris among Black men as sexist: “Part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.” That may be a part of the mix, but the underlying assumption that Democrats are simply entitled to Black votes without having to account for their record is part of a larger political problem that is coming home to roost. The bigger issue for the Democrats is not the defection of Black voters to Trump but the potential indifference of Black voters to the election more broadly.

In her unprecedented run for office, Harris has almost completely retreated from the more progressive positions she took during the heated primary in 2020 and the bolder proposals that the Biden-Harris campaign eventually adopted. These promises, designed to convince the millions of young people protesting in the streets to cast their votes for the Democratic ticket, included increasing the minimum wage, paid family leave, subsidized child care, canceling student debt, and other big government expenditures, some of which were realized in the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan Act signed by Biden in 2021. The Democrats won in 2020 with 81 million votes, the most in American history.

But in this election, even though ambitious government proposals are still popular with wide swaths of the electorate, Harris has returned to a political message that emphasizes the supremacy of capital, marginalizes the role of the state and public expenditure, and has legitimized Trump’s law-and-order rhetoric on the border and wherever Black and brown bodies need to be surveilled and policed. She has deftly avoided any mention of the 2020 protests that are the reason she was selected as Biden’s running mate in the first place. The simultaneous eruption of protest in response to the murder of George Floyd and the unfolding human tragedy of the Covid-19 pandemic raised the demands not only for police reform but also for the state to play a greater role in helping suffering people. Since her ascension to the top of the ticket, Harris and the Democratic National Committee have excised the influence of the Black Lives Matter social movement that suffused the party’s 2020 political platform and its emphasis on countering racism, police brutality, and inequality. It has been airbrushed from history. Indeed, in the Harris and Walz 80-page platform, the words “racism,” “inequality,” “diversity,” and “police brutality” are nowhere to be found.

It is a strategy that risks Harris’s standing among the core constituents of the Democratic Party, and it may threaten her influence among other voters as well. In focusing on the future, Harris avoids talking about the past. She has defined her campaign as a “new way forward,” but this framing — intended both to distinguish her campaign from Trump’s while also distancing herself from Biden — has left her campaign unable to politically contextualize and explain the inflation experienced during Biden’s term, which Republicans have blamed on his excessive spending. Instead of embracing the popular pandemic-era programs and the bolder aspects of Biden’s legacy — expanded unemployment insurance, student loan relief, antitrust measures, climate investments, and pro-union stances — and pledging to reintroduce or expand them, Harris acts as if it were all a mistake to move beyond in favor of some nebulous future.

Not just a poor strategy, it reflects the natural resting place of the Democratic Party. Biden’s gamble on a big welfare state in 2020 was the product of the combination of an unprecedented protest and a devastating pandemic, not a real commitment to using public money to break with decades of neoliberal austerity. The previous two presidential races unfolded against a backdrop of an insurgent Black Lives Matter movement and the leftward pull of Bernie Sanders placing uncomfortable demands on the party. In this race, though, activist currents in the dormant BLM movement quickly fell in line to back Harris with no demands and a narrow focus on simply getting out the vote. Sanders, along with many members of the Squad, are also marching in lockstep with the Harris campaign, despite her retreat from the more progressive positions she took in 2020. Harris’s consultants and campaign operatives have restored the Democrats’ messaging around policing, market economics, and reactionary immigration policies while dropping any pretense of social democratic programs that made Sanders’s run for president so popular. Moreover, Harris’s refusal to consider any deviation from Biden’s commitment to Israel has also undermined her support from constituencies she needs to win this year’s race.

The irony is that when Sanders ran in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Party primaries, his candidacy set the terms for a broad field. In a race to catch up with the front-running Sanders, Harris even adopted his policy proposals around free public health care and college. But in this race, Trump is setting the terms, and this time he has shed the patina of economic populism that once defined him and is leaning even more heavily into conspiracy ramblings and outrageous bigotry. Harris, lacking sufficient pressure from the left, has largely abandoned gestures or appeals to the working class and instead touts endorsements from current and former Republicans, including war criminal Dick Cheney. Focused on appealing to middle-of-the-road and undecided voters, Harris has now been left to scramble to bolster support among core Democratic bases, including Black men. Weeks away from the election, Harris promised up to $20,000 in forgivable loans for Black entrepreneurs, an initiative to tackle sickle cell disease, more regulatory protections for cryptocurrency investors, and the creation of new opportunities for Black men to participate in the emerging cannabis industry. It reeks more of desperation than as part of a coherent plan to mobilize voters.

It remains to be seen how many of these voters — Black, brown, young, working-class, without college degrees — can be mobilized to vote for Harris. But the Democratic Party’s dependence on the charisma of its older cohort, particularly Obama, relies on a stagnant image of history, one where we never learn the lessons of the past. In reality, voters carry their political resentments and disappointments into the future — not for the sake of cultivating political villains, but because their circumstances have not improved enough that they can afford to forget.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor is a co-founder of Hammer & Hope and the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University. She is the author of Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership and From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation and the editor of How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective. She is a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation “Genius Grant” and a Guggenheim fellowship.

Hammer & Hope is free to read. Sign up for our newsletter, donate to our magazine, and follow us on Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

Beyond the Ballot: The Left in a Time of Polycrisis: A Conversation with Activists, Teachers and Authors Naomi Klein, Astra Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, and Chenjerai Kumanyika Sponsored by Haymarket Books

Beyond the Ballot: The Left in a Time of Polycrisis
Haymarket Books
October 22, 2024



VIDEO:  

A special conversation with Naomi Klein, Astra Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, and Chenjerai Kumanyika

Presented by Hammer & Hope magazine, Haymarket Books and Marguerite Casey Foundation.

The Left is at a critical juncture in the United States—and globally.

We confront multiple simultaneous threats, from rising militarism, to profound ecological disruptions, to the growing threat of fascism, and beyond.

What are the possibilities for building hope and effective political strategies amid the intersecting economic, political, and ecological crises we face?

How do we understand the limits of the ballot box to achieve the changes we need and deserve?

Please join us for this urgent discussion, which will also serve as the launch of the new issue of Hammer & Hope magazine.
 
 

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

"Separated”: New Documentary Film by Acclaimed Filmaker Errol Morris and Prominent Journalist Jacob Soboroff Shows How Trump Notoriously Tore Immigrant Families Apart During His Administration; Today 1,300 Kids Are Still Alone

“Separated”: Film Shows How Trump Tore Immigrant Families Apart, 1,300 Kids Still Alone

October 4, 2024
 
VIDEO:
 
NBC News political and national correspondent.


Errol Morris

Oscar-winning filmmaker.


Links


"Separated" at IFC Center

"Separated: Inside an American Tragedy"

We speak with Oscar-winning filmmaker Errol Morris about his new documentary, Separated, based on NBCcorrespondent Jacob Soboroff’s book of the same name. The film details the horrors of the Trump “zero tolerance” immigration policy, under which thousands of immigrant children were forcibly separated from their parents after they crossed the southern U.S. border, part of the administration’s broader crackdown on immigration. The cruel policy was enforced as early as July 2017, initially without public acknowledgment by Trump officials. It was ultimately rescinded amid widespread outrage, but it continues to impact the families who were targeted, and about 1,000 children remain effectively orphaned years later, with authorities and rights groups still unable to locate their parents. “It wouldn’t have happened were it not for decades of bipartisan deterrence-based immigration policy that continues to this day,” says Soboroff. Morris says “the most appalling part of the policy” was the lack of record-keeping. “OK, let’s separate the children, but let’s not actually keep a record of how to ever reunite them. Let’s separate them for good. Let’s just create orphans, abandon children,” he says. Separated plays for a week at the IFC Center in New York, starting tonight, before it gets wider theatrical distribution and airs on MSNBC this December.



Transcript:


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We end today’s show with the acclaimed new documentary Separated, which looks at the horrors of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that led to the separation of up to 5,500 children from their parents, mostly from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, as they sought asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The disturbing policy was enforced as early as July 2017, months before Trump officials even acknowledged it was happening. To this day, over a thousand children are still separated from their families, many remaining in the U.S. after their parents were deported to their home countries. This is the trailer of Separated.

JONATHAN WHITE: Separation from your parent is a profoundly traumatizing event. But systematic separation of children from parents, officially, it wasn’t happening. But it was happening.

ERROL MORRIS: You should tell me how you got involved in all of this.

SCOTT LLOYD: Define “all this.”

JACOB SOBOROFF: Their version of stopping people from coming into the country was taking children away from their parents so that people wouldn’t come.

JALLYN SUALOG: Our field staff started to notice very young kids, tender age, anyone below 5. That’s kind of unusual, right?

JACOB SOBOROFF: What “zero tolerance” did was turn their helpers into their worst nightmare.

BORDER PATROL AGENT 1: Freeze! Freeze! Don’t move! Don’t move!

BORDER PATROL AGENT 2: Stop! On your knees!

SEN. HEIDI HEITKAMP: So, if you thought the child was endangered —

DHS SECRETARY JOHN KELLY: Not routinely — sure, right.

SEN. HEIDI HEITKAMP: — that’s the only circumstance to which you would separate?

DHS SECRETARY JOHN KELLY: Can’t imagine doing it otherwise.

JACOB SOBOROFF: The government thought that showing the world separations through the eyes of people like me, they would scare the [bleep] out of people that were attempting to come from coming.

Is that the right strategy?

DHS SECRETARY KIRSTJEN NIELSEN: So, if you’re part of a family and you break the law, you will be incarcerated.

JACOB SOBOROFF: I’ve honestly never seen anything like that. There were about 1,500 kids in there.

BRIAN KAREM: You’re a parent. Don’t you have any empathy for what they go through?

LEE GELERNT: We now know this was right from the get-go. Someone must have been planning this.

NEWS ANCHOR: A federal judge says the government needs to reunite young immigrant children with their parents.

JONATHAN WHITE: We had 14 days to reunify all of the children under 5.

JALLYN SUALOG: Their assessment form in the system doesn’t have that much information. What’s your mom’s name? Mom. Like every mom, their name is Mom.

LEE GELERNT: Do I call this child abuse? Do I call it torture?

JONATHAN WHITE: Separation was the purpose. Prosecution was the tool.

LEE GELERNT: It’s not over. Five years later, we are still trying to reunite up to a thousand children.

JONATHAN WHITE: There is really nothing to stop them.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS: This is a new era.

JONATHAN WHITE: It troubles me profoundly that it could happen again.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests. The Oscar-winning filmmaker Errol Morris, director of this new film, Separated, and many other documentaries — he did The Thin Blue Line, The Fog of War, The Unknown Known, many more — he joins us from Cambridge, Massachusetts. And here in New York, we’re joined by Jacob Soboroff, NBC News political and national correspondent, whose 2020 book, Separated: Inside an American Tragedy, inspired Morris’s documentary. Separated begins a weeklong Academy Award-qualifying run at the IFC Center here in New York tonight, before it’s released in theaters and broadcast on MSNBC this December. We’re joined both by Errol Morris in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Jacob Soboroff.

Jacob, your book was astounding, your work and what’s being shown in Errol Morris’s film. Talk about what happened on the border, and actually the trajectory that led to that. It didn’t start with Trump, though, to say the least, he exacerbated the situation.

JACOB SOBOROFF: Yeah, it certainly didn’t — first of all, thank you so much, Amy, for having me back, and it’s an honor, as always, to be here. And it’s been a profound honor to work with Errol on this project.

And I think that, you know, when you talk about — remind folks about what happened, don’t take my word for it, listen to the George W. Bush-, Republican-appointed judge in the Southern District of California who stopped this policy and called it “one of the most shameful chapters in the history of our country,” the deliberate separation of, as you said, over 5,500 children from their parents, for no other reason other than to harm those children to scare other families, largely from Central America, from coming to the United States.

And I guess what you’ll see in the film, what Errol has done so beautifully is lay out how the Trump admin — first of all, American immigration policy over the course of decades led us to this moment. It was a bipartisan immigration policy from Democrats and Republicans that was based in deterrence and based in hurting people as the official policy of the United States to make sure other people didn’t come. We know it doesn’t work. It still doesn’t work. It didn’t work under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama — who deported more people than any other president in the history of the United States. It certainly didn’t work under Donald Trump, who deliberately separated all these children. And under President Biden now, a turn back to deterrence-based policies. And what the film does is put it all in context in the way that only Errol Morris can. And I can’t wait for everybody to see it.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip of Jonathan White, the former deputy director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, in the film Separated.

JONATHAN WHITE: If you have children, you need only imagine your own child in a foreign country, not speaking the language, with no parent, with no money, not understanding how that society works, having been apprehended by federal immigration authorities. Each of these children is your child in that situation. I could never explain to someone why they should care, but I can tell you that a lot of people do care and care profoundly.

Every day there are children who enter the United States unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian. And those children require protection and care, to find a family member of theirs in the United States who can take care of them. Family separation, though, was not about unaccompanied children. It was about accompanied children. It was about children with their families. And the Unaccompanied Children program, which I worked in, was essentially hijacked for a purpose for which it was never intended nor authorized in law. It was a program designed to be a child protection program for children who enter the United States without parents, and it was instead used as a tool to take children from their parents.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Jonathan White, former deputy director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, in the film Separated. He was a commander and now a captain. Errol Morris, if you can talk about those who agreed to be part of your documentary, those who thought they were going to be in it, but then decided to leave once they got to the interview site? Talk about the film that you made.

ERROL MORRIS: A difficult film to make, because few people wanted to talk, and few people could talk. People who were still working for the government were constrained by that fact alone from actually appearing in the film.

But it’s a sad and disheartening story. We all know immigration has become a political hot potato. It’s also become a hotbed of lies. If you want to hear really extraordinary lying, listen to people on both sides talking about immigration, although the Republicans certainly have the lead, the lead in lying, self-deception, misrepresentation. It’s endless. And this is a disheartening story particularly for someone like myself whose parents and grandparents were immigrants who came to this country. This is how we want to treat people? No one wants to disagree and say that there isn’t a problem with immigration. That would be foolish, because there is. But still, it comes down to how we treat people coming into this country or people who want to come into this country. And it’s an embarrassment.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s listen to how we treat people. In 2018, ProPublica released audio from inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in which kids between the ages of 4 and 10 are heard crying “Mama,” “Papa,” after being separated from their parents at the southern border.

CHILD: [crying] Papi! Papi! Papi! Papi!

BORDER PATROL AGENT: [translated] Well, we have an orchestra here, right? What we’re missing is a conductor.

AMY GOODMAN: “We have the crying orchestra right here. What we’re missing is the conductor,” the Border Patrol agent mocking them, Jacob Soboroff, this significant moment that riveted the country, and the abhorrent — the feeling of people across the political spectrum of these children being separated. Talk about who would and wouldn’t be interviewed.

JACOB SOBOROFF: Yeah. And I remember that moment, too, because I was down on the border. It was Ginger Thompson at ProPublica that published that, that audio. And you’ll hear it again in the film, put into the context of these beautiful narrative vignettes that Errol has created with Eugenio Caballero, the Oscar-winning production designer, and this wonderful cast of Mexican actors and the Mexican crew that basically recreated what nobody got to see. The point you made, Amy, here, by showing this, actually, I think, is that nobody really got — I was inside those facilities, but nobody — and saw with my own eyes, but there’s no footage inside those facilities. There’s leaked audio from those facilities.

And I think it’s part of the reason, to get to your question, why some of the officials who were part of this policy, like Tom Homan, the former director of ICE and potentially the future director of the Department of Homeland Security under former President Trump — and Errol, you know, tells the story better than I do — but showed up at the studio in Cambridge to be interviewed by Errol, only to leave before sitting down in front of Errol and the Interrotron. But on the other hand, there were people like Jonathan White, like Jallyn Sualog, career civil servants who spent their lives worrying about this and tried to protect these children and did show up.

AMY GOODMAN: And head of homeland security, Kirstjen Nielsen?

JACOB SOBOROFF: Yeah, she didn’t show up, either. Errol and —

AMY GOODMAN: Errol, you spoke to her for many, many hours?

ERROL MORRIS: I spoke to her for many, many hours. But in the end, she refused actually to appear on film.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about her significance, Jacob.

JACOB SOBOROFF: Well, she signs — and you’ll see it in the movie — she signs the decision memo, option three on this line, despite receiving a pair of contradictory memos, one from John Mitnick, the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, that said, “You may very well violate” — I’m paraphrasing here — “the Constitution of the United States by deliberately separating these children,” and nevertheless, at the urging of officials like Kevin McAleenan, who was the head of Customs and Border Protection, signed it to enact this policy and separate all these children.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Homan addressed the RNC. And we were both on the floor of the RNC.

JACOB SOBOROFF: We were.

AMY GOODMAN: And I saw you going over to Don Trump Jr., yes, Donald Trump’s son, about the family separation policy. Let’s play a clip.

JACOB SOBOROFF: I know immigration is important to him. I covered the family separation crisis closely. Will we continue to see policies like separating 5,000 children deliberately from their parents?

DONALD TRUMP JR.: You mean the Obama administration, in which [inaudible] —

JACOB SOBOROFF: You know they didn’t do that, sir.

DONALD TRUMP JR.: OK, sure.

JACOB SOBOROFF: Will there be a second family separation policy?

DONALD TRUMP JR.: It’s MSDNC, so I expect nothing less from you clowns. Even today, even 48 hours later, you couldn’t wait. You couldn’t wait with your lies and with you nonsense. Now just get out of here.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I was standing right behind you, and he stormed away as he was telling you to get out of here.

JACOB SOBOROFF: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: But the significance of what he’s saying? And who makes the decisions? Can this happen again? I mean, you have a thousand kids now that still are separated?

JACOB SOBOROFF: Over 1,300, actually, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

And, you know, the thing about that exchange is you’ll notice that he didn’t address the question, actually. And not just him, but former President Trump, JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr., none of them will address whether or not they will reenact this policy, will put this policy back into place, which I think raises — and Tom Homan, by the way, himself, at CPAC, got up there and said, “You know, I don’t want to” — and it’s in the movie — “I don’t want to hear about family separations anymore. I’m still facing lawsuits about this.” Nobody said, “We won’t do it.”

And what do you think a mass deportation policy is, deporting more people than Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954? You know, that is family separation. There are families that are mixed-status families. And that’s the official policy of the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign. And as I said, these were the Republican policies of the Trump administration, but it wouldn’t have happened were it not for decades of bipartisan deterrence-based immigration policy that continues to this day.

AMY GOODMAN: And the role of Congress?

JACOB SOBOROFF: Congress hasn’t done anything to protect the children who have been separated and to ban family separation in perpetuity. It just hasn’t happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Errol Morris, you wanted this film out before the election. Why?

ERROL MORRIS: Well, it’s, I think, pretty damn obvious. I don’t think it particularly looks good for Donald Trump. A number of administrations had considered the possibility of separating parents and children at the border and rejected it, because it was clearly inhumane. Not Donald Trump.

And one of the most appalling aspects of this policy is there were arguments about keeping records. “OK, let’s separate the children, but let’s not actually keep a record of how to ever reunite them. Let’s separate them for good. Let’s just create orphans. Abandon children.” To me, it’s the most appalling part of the policy. It’s a policy — if one hasn’t noticed this in all of Donald Trump’s rhetoric, it’s a policy of meanness.

AMY GOODMAN: Errol Morris, we’re going to have to leave it there.

ERROL MORRIS: You can say it’s deterrence. You can say it’s this. You can say it’s that. But at its heart, it’s a policy of meanness.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Separated is premiering tonight at IFC here in New York City, has a weeklong run, and then it’s going to be on MSNBC, but after the election?

JACOB SOBOROFF: It’ll be on in December. We’re going to get the theatrical release out of the way first. And I’m excited for people to see it whenever and wherever they can see it.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us. Jacob Soboroff is author of Separated and is one of the stars of the film Separated, directed by Errol Morris.

Happy birthday to Becca Staley! I’m Amy Goodman.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.




Up Next
“Just Being Racist”: Biden & Trump Push Anti-Immigrant Policies in Dueling Border Visits