Letters From the December 2025 Issue

The ad itself is horrible. But as ICE agents violently capture and arrest immigrants on the streets, kidnap them from their homes, chase them through farms and factories, the publicity becomes all the more reprehensible. Will The nation make a withdrawal? Public self-criticism? Anything less would be unacceptable.

Bruce Hobsonguanajuato,
Mexico

The writer is co-coordinator of the Mexico Solidarity Project.
 

The nation Answers

As a child of immigrants – and as someone whose family members were deported – I couldn’t disagree more with the ad’s xenophobic and Malthusian message about negative population growth. The nation has long championed the rights of immigrants, and this commitment is unwavering. That said, we believe that readers of The nation are able to distinguish between our editorial position and paid advertising. Our advertising policy has existed since it was written by Victor Navasky in 1979. We publish controversial advertisements because we trust the intelligence and judgment of our audience, not because we endorse the opinions expressed. Today, as in 1979, readers of The nation It is to be expected that we “sometimes accept advertising even if the views expressed are repugnant to those of the publishers.”

BHaskar Sunkara
President, The nation
New York, New York
 

Distrust by design

Regarding “Punished for Playing by the Rules: The Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime,” by Eileen Markey [TheNation.com, July 24, 2025]: As a former immigration judge, I am alarmed by the increase in arrests in immigration courts. For decades, administrations of both parties have agreed that “sensitive locations” — schools, hospitals, churches and courthouses — should be off-limits to immigration authorities. These should be sanctuaries of trust, where human needs and fundamental rights are prioritized.

Yet plainclothes agents now roam immigration courtrooms, waiting to arrest individuals who follow legal procedure and attempt to assert their rights. Many are longtime residents with deep families and community ties. Many have valid asylum claims. Closing cases to detain people, denying bond hearings, firing immigration judges, and expanding expedited deportations are inhumane tactics and grotesque distortions of what our justice system is supposed to be: impartial, accessible, and based on the rule of law. The consequences are not only traumatic for those targeted, but they also erode public trust in our legal institutions.

This growing imbalance is a political choice. The federal government must invest in safeguarding due process and the integrity of the justice system. We need policies that promote an independent judiciary, protect the safety of all participants in the legal process, and provide access to legal representation, especially for those who handle complex cases without an attorney and are at greatest risk of deportation. These ideas are not radical, but fundamental to a fair justice system. When courts function as neutral forums rather than extensions of law enforcement, they can uphold both the law and our values. It’s time to recalibrate and restore that balance.

The Hhonorable R.A.Shley Tabaddor
Los Angeles, California

The writer is a former immigration judge and former chief attorney for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.