Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The real threat of J.D. Vance’s immigration misinformation

J.D. Vance
Luke Johnson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Wen is a physician who teaches asylum medicine, trauma and collective healing. She is a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project in partnership with Massachusetts General Hospital.

By calling Haitian migrants with temporary protection status “illegal, ” vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance is spreading a more subtle and consequential lie than former President Donald Trump’s ridiculous accusations of migrants eating pets.

Our opaque migration pathways are ripe for misinformation that can fuel racist and xenophobic policies. In contrast, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vance’s opponent, has been a leader in progressive policies on migration such as advocacy for a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and allowing all Minnesotans to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of documentation status.


Humane policies on migration — particularly for those fleeing forced displacement such as persecution, war and violence — are an acknowledgement that we are all humans bound by a desire to be safe and to protect our families, and that none of us are immune to political and environmental instability.

As of May, 120 million people had been forcibly displaced, according to the UN Refugee Agency. That’s equivalent to more than one-third of the U..S population or to the population of Japan. And it double from just a decade ago. This includes refugees — people granted this specific legal status before arriving in the host country based on five protected grounds of persecution (race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group); asylum seekers, who are applying for this protection; and others who fit into a patchwork of programs that vary by country and geopolitics of the time. One example of this is temporary protection status many Haitian migrants have in the United States, which since its creation by Congress in 1990 allows people coming from certain countries deemed to have unsafe conditions such as war or natural disaster to temporarily live and work in the U.S.

I am an internal medicine physician; one of the most meaningful uses of my license is volunteering as a forensic evaluator for asylum applicants. I was trained to objectively document key parts of people’s reported history of traumas and signs and symptoms of the sequelae, psychological and/or physical, to assist the asylum officer or immigration judge to make their legal determination of asylum. Studies have shown that asylum seekers who had a forensic medical evaluation were twice as likely to be granted asylum than the national average (81 percent vs. 42 percent).

Seeking asylum, besides being an internationally recognized human right under international agreements of the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, is codified in U.S. law. This fundamental human right should not be politicized further. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which manages our immigration and asylum processes, is vulnerable and constantly under the threat of attack and defunding for political reasons. As president, Trump slashed the numbers of refugees allowed by 80 percent, and through his closed-door policies crippled the funding mechanisms for USCIS. This, despite the fact that in the past 15 years, refugees and asylees contributed a net $123 billion profit to federal, state and local governments.

I initially became interested in asylum medicine because as a physician who cares for many migrants and displaced people, I witnessed the intense stress of uncertain migration status on my patients and the toll it takes on their health. One of my middle-aged patient’s chronic abdominal pain flares during his immigration decisions as it may be more bad news about separation from his wife and 10-year-old daughter. Another young woman with depression and insomnia has difficulty following up for her severe asthma as she tiptoes around her abusive partner because her and her children’s immigration status depends on him.

This “ violence of uncertainty ” is particularly harmful for people seeking asylum, refugees and other migrants who suffer from traumas of violence and persecution. Studies from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have shown that longer wait times for asylum applicants are associated with worse physical and emotional health, independent of prior exposure to trauma and violence.

Conducting forensic evaluations for people applying for asylum and other protected statuses is one way to leverage my existing skills and privilege as a clinician to help other asylum applicants move through a byzantine, opaque, understaffed and underfunded system.

To be sure, the asylum process is far from perfect and focuses on an individual’s experience with being personally targeted by persecution on grounds that the U.S. sociopolitical system prioritizes. It does not address other key types of forced displacement such as the climate crisis — already pressing humanitarian disasters bound to become more catastrophic — or even being displaced by war and violence. Furthermore, we continue to detain and criminalize those who are deemed to have entered the U.S. illegally, even if they did so to seek asylum. That’s why we need updated, reformed, humane migration policies to reflect current drivers of migration.

Yet, I continue to participate in this flawed asylum system, much like I continue to go to work in a broken and inequitable health care system with the hopes of making it better. I keep returning because this work reminds me of why I became a physician in the first place: It’s a way to connect with common humanity. More than anything, I am struck by how similar stories are across the world, how fundamentally we are united by a desire for safety and belonging. In nearly every forensic interview, the client shares with me a deep desire to put their worst traumas in the past and plan for the future. They want to let go of the breath they’ve been holding for years, maybe decades — something they cannot do with uncertain status.

Healing from trauma takes place individually, interpersonally and societally. We can start where we are: Look around you, and in your own family history — when were your ancestors displaced and desperate for safety? How do you wish they were treated, and what skills do you have to help others now? Honor their memories by speaking out and voting for compassion and unity. Future generations are watching.


Read More

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less