America has an immigration system that is one of bureaucracy, terror, and broken promises, subjecting even society-revitalizing individuals to cruel reality. An impassioned opinion column in The People’s Vanguard of Davis (May 24, 2025) by Lora Strum, Managing Editor, ACLU, introduces readers to the life of Sarah and Matt (names withheld to ensure their privacy), whose life is one punctuated by the constant threat of deportation and detention. Theirs is the human side of the price paid by such a system, which weighs profit over protection, immediately raising questions about justice, equity, and change. That is the subject this article addresses, their story, the structural barriers to which they are subjected, and polarized debate around immigration, challenging Diplotic’s readers to join solutions to this core issue.
A Marriage in Time of Crisis
Sarah, who is an American citizen, and Matt, who is an undocumented immigrant who has lived in the United States for over 20 year, met in the early 2000s. They fell in love through life experiences, enriched by the fact that Matt had already resided close to Sarah’s family members’ hometown prior to moving to America. They became close friends and turned out into a committed couple. But life took a twist for the couple in January 2017, days following Donald Trump’s first term inauguration. The executive order called the “Muslim Ban” hung over an across-the-board crackdown on immigrants, and Sarah and Matt hurried to City Hall to be married—not out of love, but out of fear. “I never thought about marriage as something that was needed,” said Sarah who wrote an op-ed about their ordeal. “But once Trump got in, my knee was to try to safeguard [Matt]. My thinking was, by marrying him, it would give me something. At least, then, I could ask about his whereabouts if he got picked up.”
This is the brutal reality for mixed-status couples: being married to an American is not the safeguard against detention and deportation that it is supposed to be. For Matt and me, this was starkly clear as we navigated an immigration policy designed to keep unauthorized immigrants waiting, regardless of their worth and their stake in the country.
The punitive nature of the immigration system
Matt has spent over two decades living in the U.S., paying taxes using an IRS-issued Taxpayer Identification Number. “I’ve done the right thing since day one,” he said. But as he indicates, “none of it makes any difference. With Trump [now there is] a target on my back.” They filed for hardship waiver, the pathway through which unauthorized immigrants can become legally recognized if their deportation would cause extreme hardship to an American citizen family member, such as Sarah. But this pathway is treacherous. It involves massive paperwork—bank statements, medical records, biometric testing—and a perilous, expensive flight out of the United States to an interview with no guarantee of approval. “You have to qualify for a [hardship] waiver and then have to leave the country to get interviewed. [Nothing is] guaranteed. It’s all a gamble—and an expensive one,” said Sarah.
The process heightens their vulnerability. To give this type of information to the government, to have no assurance it would be successful, is to enter into a trap. “You give them all this—account information, background—and it just makes it easier for them to find you if they decide to pick you up,” said Sarah. It is something that hangs over their heads, from Matt refusing to leave the house to not being able to make future plans. Without a work permit, Matt is unable to secure steady employment after all these years of doing multiple different jobs to provide for his family. “People just don’t get it,” said Sarah. “There is no work visa for being a dishwasher. There is no pathway for the people who do the unheralded work that keeps this nation running.”
The Emotional and Social Cost
The couple had also requested “parole in place” which, until political backlash put it on hold, allowed undocumented spouses of citizen spouses to seek work permits without the threat of immigration enforcement. There were not many other options for the couple. The opinion argues the policy is “more punitive than probative,” benefiting from immigrants’ labor—work, taxes—without extending to them basic protections. “You’re good enough to work and into social security, but not good enough to be covered or have rights,” said Sarah. “That’s the trap.”
The threat of separation is looming over Matt and Sarah’s heads. “Our worst nightmare is being separated,” Sarah characterized an immigration detention process that “is designed to take advantage of people” where “bodies are commodities.” Their goals—returning to school, establishing stability—are put on the backburner, all their energies spent on trying to get through bureaucracy and advocate for others in their shoes. “There is no plan,” Matt said. “If I step out the door, I don’t know if I’m coming in.” Such anxiety steals time and quality of life, something that is put as starkly as possible by Sarah: “All we want is peace. We just don’t want to be terrorized by our government. They’re taking our time, our quality of life. It’s grotesque.”
Matthew’s reasons for emigrating illustrate the desperation which compels people to emigrate. “I didn’t come to take anything,” he remarked. “I came because it was my last option. Either emigrate to another place or get killed or put into prison in my own country.” This demystifies the myth that immigrants “choose” to be illegal, and illustrates the survival-driven decisions which result in emigration.
The Polarized Debate: Voices from the Comments
The Vanguard article comments page affirms the deep divide in public sentiment regarding immigration. Some readers, for example, Ron O., feel that illegal and legal immigration are fueled by businesses requiring cheap labor for farm, construction, and household work. “If not for EMPLOYER interests, this country might’ve closed off a lot more immigration,” Ron wrote, finishing up by stating that illegal immigration needs to be halted first by refraining from crossing into the country illegally. He is skeptical about the larger effect, posing the question, “What about all those ‘left behind'” in the immigrants’ countries of origin.
This skepticism is also expressed by Keith Olsen, who disputes the authenticity of accounts such as Matt’s and argues it was long enough time especially since it took 20 years to seek citizenship. “No one is forced to move to America,” he wrote, and claims to persecution often are “tremendously exaggerated.” David M. Greenwald responds by saying that immigration is often not an idle choice but one involving survival, and often one based on conditions driven by U.S. foreign policy or trade agreements. He notes that the complexity of the immigration process—with delays taking decades—land many in legal limbo. “For many illegal aliens, especially for those who came to this country as children, there is no pathway to legal residence, let alone citizenship, whatsoever,” Greenwald wrote.
These differing perspectives mirror national debate: one emphasizing adherence to the rule of law and personal responsibility, the other emphasizing systemic failure and humanitarian concerns. Reality likely exists in the middle, where economic incentives, international disparities, and policy gaps converge.
The Case for Change
Sarah and Matt are a microcosm for the broader crisis. The U.S. immigration system is not just broken for undocumented immigrants, but for their communities and their own families. It allows for contributions including taxes and labor to be contributed while withholding basic rights, to create a cycle of exploitation. A lack of available avenues—like visas for low-wage necessary workers, or expedited hardship waivers—keeps this cycle circulating. Efforts such as parole in place, which were once a safety net, were dismantled through political backlash, leaving families in limbo.
Reform would involve more direct avenues to citizenship for long-term residents, more streamlined waiver procedures, and protection for mixed-status families. But as the op-ed proposes, immigration has become politicized, driven by racism and discrimination far too often. The solution is political courage to place humanity over partisanship. The economic case—made in the comments—also bears consideration. Employers’ requests for unauthorized labor point to the necessity for policies to keep up with economic needs and legal avenues, reducing the motive for illegal immigration without compromising workers’ rights.
