Hypocrisy Thrives in Darkness

The Washington Post's one-sided coverage of "a nation of immigrants"

By Andrew R. Arthur on March 8, 2018

One of the first things that you find out as a fellow in a think tank is that not everything that you write gets printed. That said, if a media institution is going to hold itself out as an unbiased guardian of democracy, it owes a duty to its readers to print more than one side of an issue of public interest.

The institution in question is the Washington Post, which added the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" to its online masthead shortly after President Trump's inauguration. The rejected op-ed is at the end of this post.

The issue of public interest was a decision by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to amend its mission statement. As I explained in my February 23, 2018, post "USCIS Changes Its Mission Statement", the agency's former mission statement read as follows:

USCIS secures America's promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

Here is the new USCIS mission statement:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation's lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.

The keen observer will note that the agency has dropped the phrase "a nation of immigrants" from its mission statement. While only in Washington would there be so much hubbub about such a change, in the Trump presidency and the response thereto (particularly as relates to immigration), such hubbubs have become the new normal.

Lest you think I am exaggerating, the Washington Post printed two news articles, one opinion piece, and one "Perspective" article on this change, as well as a tweet. The first article was captioned "Nation of immigrants? According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, not so much." The title says it all, but the article begins: "The United States is no longer 'a nation of immigrants' — at least according to a new mission statement from the government agency that awards citizenship."

The paper shortly thereafter issued a tweet that linked to the article:

The second article, published the next day, got even more personal: "USCIS director who eliminated 'nation of immigrants' is the son of an immigrant", referring to Francis Cissna, the agency's head. In addition to covering the subject of the headline, it states:

Cissna was previously director of immigration policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and was a key adviser on immigration to Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. The wording change in the USCIS mission statement suggests a new, more inward-looking approach by an agency that so many aspiring immigrants considered an ally in their own quests to achieve the American Dream.

The past tense verb "considered" was intentional.

Then came an opinion piece captioned "The Trump administration isn't just changing words. It's changing the country." It began:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services erased 300 years of American dreaming this week when it revised its stated purpose from securing "America's promise as a nation of immigrants" to securing "the homeland" — and, of course, "honoring our values." The shift is hard to miss: No longer will the country focus on letting people in. Instead, it will work to keep them out. But words are just words, right?

Wrong. How we talk influences how we think; that shouldn't come as news to anyone. Linguists seized long ago on the theory that the terms we've been trained to describe the world with affect how we see that world. Eliminating an idea from the lexicon makes us less likely to devote mental space or energy to it. After all, if it's not right in front of us, it's easy for it to flee our often flitting minds. In this case, USCIS is replacing one idea with another and, at least over time, reshaping our conception of the agency's role — and perhaps of the United States' relationship to immigration more generally.

With all due respect, if USCIS has the power to "erase[] 300 years of American dreaming", the agency likely has too much power. I do not believe that it has that ability, however.

Finally, the paper published a "Perspective" article, written by former USCIS Director Leon Rodríguez, who served in the Obama administration. It was captioned "I ran USCIS. This is a nation of immigrants, no matter what mission statements say." The subheadline read: "The Trump administration's rhetoric can't change the truth about the United States." It states:

Ensuring "the promise of the United States as a nation of immigrants" will no longer be the mission of the agency charged with administering our immigration laws and processing applications for permanent residence and citizenship.

The new mission statement is a faithful articulation of the Trump administration's policies grounded in the view that immigrants, with a few carefully defined exceptions, are a threat and burden to the United States, rather than the very essence of what has made our country a beacon and an example to the rest of the world.

Regardless of the Trump administration's rhetoric, we are, always have been and, I am optimistic enough to say even in these times, always will be a "nation of immigrants."

That is when I decided to draft an op-ed, which was based on my February 23, 2018, post. In that op-ed (below), I referenced the four earlier articles, and explained how the old mission statement was "a misconstruction of law, with superfluous prose", while the new one "better reflects the agency's mission."

That op-ed was rejected. Perhaps it was because the change in the USCIS mission statement had become "old news" in our 24-7 news cycle. Maybe it was because the Washington Post determined that it had already fully covered the subject. It could be that they did not like my prose, or consider my 25 years of immigration experience to be authoritative enough. Possibly, however, it was because my statements did not fit the paper's editorial policy.

To say that "Democracy Dies in Darkness" suggests that the more light that can be cast on any given subject of public note, the better it is for the commonweal and the political hygiene of our Republic. Four articles (and a tweet) that all share the same point of view, however, direct light in only one direction. If light shines only in one direction, there will be shadows — a form of darkness.

Of course, in the metaphorical context, "darkness" is subjective. Opinions with which the editorial board of a newspaper disagree may not be deemed to inform the public or add to the public discourse enough to be publication worthy, or worse, may be considered "darkness" itself.

Such private censorship would be in error. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Edward Carrington from Paris in January 1787:

I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. [Emphasis added.]

Here is my rejected op-ed. You decide:

Overreaction to USCIS's Mission Statement

By Andrew Arthur

The press has spent significant space covering a nonevent: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) amending its mission statement. Not only is this an overreaction, but it ignores the need for that amendment.

As the Washington Post reports, the previous mission statement read:

USCIS secures America's promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.

While anodyne at first blush, a closer examination reveals this is a misconstruction of law, with superfluous prose.

The latter is the statement that "America [is] a nation of immigrants." While this ignores that Native Americans are citizens too, the point is obvious: Most citizens are descendants of immigrants, or immigrants themselves.  It’s a useful reminder for us all, but it doesn’t belong in the mission statement of an agency charged with adjudicating immigration benefits.

USCIS adjudicators should evaluate every application impartially and neutrally. But, does denying a benefit undermine our "promise as a nation of immigrants"? The agency's old mission statement would say "yes."

Look at the language: "USCIS secures America's promise as a nation of immigrants by . . . granting immigration and citizenship benefits." While that is true for meritorious applications, it implies that denying an application threatens "America's promise as a nation of immigrants." Perhaps this is why USCIS found "credible fear" (a first step in the asylum process for illegal entrants), as the Attorney General has stated, "in 88 percent of claims adjudicated."

This is not the only problem with the old mission statement. Applicants for immigration benefits aren't "customers." Merriam Webster defines a "customer" as: "one that purchases a commodity or service." In the immigration adjudication business, such transaction would be a "bribe." Applicants (generally) pay an adjudication fee, but that isn’t a "purchase," because there’s no guarantee of a positive result.

USCIS's real "customers" are the American people, who are paying for the adjudicator's knowledge and impartiality. And, as USCIS’s director has explained:

[R]eferring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as “customers” promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law.

The new statement better reflects the agency's mission:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.

America’s fundamental promise is equality before the law. And the "promise" of our "nation's lawful immigration system" is a neutral and impartial adjudication. 

This is reflected in the last clause of that new statement: "honoring our values," which USCIS identifies as "integrity," "respect," "innovation," and "vigilance." As to "integrity," USCIS states: "We review each case before us on its own merit and reach decisions that are based on the law and facts. We will be ever mindful of the importance of the trust the American people have placed in us to administer the nation’s immigration system fairly, honestly, and correctly."

This hardly denigrates the concept that this is a "nation of immigrants." If anything, it exemplifies who we are as a people.

Cool reflection on such facts used to be the touchstone of the press. Not the Washington Post, however. Its first headline on this change stated (in a news article): "Nation of immigrants? According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, not so much." One opinion piece the paper ran is headlined "The Trump administration isn’t just changing words. It’s changing the country," another, "I ran USCIS. This is a nation of immigrants, no matter what mission statements say." The first headline is questionable, the second (by former USCIS Director Leon Rodríguez) simply restates fact.

And in an ad hominem move, the paper also reported: "Immigration services director who eliminated ‘nation of immigrants’ motto is the son of an immigrant." Respectfully, that the "son of an immigrant" (or even a former "immigrant") heads USCIS is unexceptional to those who understand this is a "nation of immigrants." Logically, the fact a "son of an immigrant" leads the agency charged with adjudicating most immigration benefits simply reinforces that fact.

Unfortunately, "cool reflection" has been lost in reporting on any immigration action, no matter how trifling, by Trump administration.