By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

Ever wonder why we’re getting so many waves of desperate Central American migrants coming north to the United States?

The waves began in 1979 following the U.S. intervention in the Nicaraguan Contra War, in an attempt to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration provided substantial financial and material support for the Contras operating in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, despite reports of vast corruption and mass human rights violations.

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

Dear Pro-Life Folks,

​I feel as though there is a misunderstanding. I keep reading posts online casting all Democrats as having one agenda and one agenda only, and that is to "kill unborn babies."

​This accusation seemed to really peak during the Kavanaugh crisis, with many on the Right accusing those on the Left of using Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to achieve our one great hope: getting Kavanaugh out of the way so we could keep on killing babies.

​Well, this has me very confused. Why? Because being pro-choice has absolutely nothing to do with being pro-abortion.

By  Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

I began collecting Republican quotes some time ago because it seemed like every time I heard about some outlandishly  sexist or racist comment made by a politician or other community leader, it always turned out to be a Republican, and just as often,  a self-identified Christian (of the Evangelical kind). So whenever I heard or read about such a comment, I added it to a Word document I kept on my laptop. 

Soon, the list was getting long, with 10, 15, then 20 outrageous comments, that if one didn't know better, might assume were a part of either a propaganda  plot,  or a misguided piece in the Onion. But no, after thorough vetting  the comments, (which most often involved going to  the direct source and reading the comment for myself) the  majority (99.98%) were accurately  reported.  I've posted the list on Facebook and Twitter, and I go back periodically  to update the list as new comments emerge.

This list does not necessarily reflect the attitudes and perspectives of all Republicans, but I do believe they  reflect the increasing shift of the Republican  party  toward the political Right.  Perhaps the GOP has always had sexist and racist strains, particularly due to the party's commitment traditionalism, or perhaps the Republican party has been hijacked by right-wing populism. Regardless,  I present to you members of the GOP:

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSc, MSW

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSs, MSW

I’ve been blogging about the humanitarian crisis involving Central American migrant families separated at the U.S. border for months now, and I along with so many others in the United States and around the world, have been trying to find an explanation, some type of rationale for the Trump administration’s handling of the political asylum seekers coming across the southwest border. After reviewing all the pleadings in the federal case filed against the government by the ACLU, as well as many of Trump’s speeches related to immigration, I think I may now have a better understanding. I think I have insight into his and his closest advisors’ perspectives on political asylum; their ultimate, buried-under-the-rhetoric ideology, so to speak.
 
Trump let his real agenda slip out in a recent speech. The scene was the Cabinet Room, a historic meeting room at the White House. The setting, a luncheon with Republican members of Congress. Trump began his speech by referencing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his “Muslim ban,” calling it a victory for the Constitution. 
 
Although there is great variation in the opinions of immigration policy experts on the most effective way of managing cross border migration, throughout this speech, Trump presents the immigration debate in simplistically polarized terms: Republican want closed border and low crime, and Democrats want to open the floodgates to gang members and murderers, stating, 

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

Have you ever had one of those conversations with someone where you try your best to point out the fallacies in his or her argument, and rather than acknowledging the facts, he or she responds with the unchallengeable statement: "I just know what I know, period!"? I sure have, and I have to say, these types of conversations are increasing in frequency, particularly on social media, and they're incredibly frustrating.

The big question I want to address in this blog post is why is it so hard to change someone's mind about something (particularly political issues), when facts exist to prove them wrong? And of course the other way is true as well. Why is it so difficult for us to change our own minds when others come at us with facts to prove us wrong? 

There are many possible answers to this question, and I'm going to share a few of my thoughts on some reasons for our collective stubbornness, and seeming inability to compromise on important issues. My hope is that this post will also shed some light on how it's possible that there is such a gap in how people in this country are perceiving the exact same dynamics and set of events so differently. 

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

There are many questions people are asking about the humanitarian crisis involving the Central American immigrants who were separated from their children at the border in this past year, including 1) Who are the families involved? 2) How are the children being treated? 3) Are there any financial incentives involved in detaining asylum-seekers? 4) Aren’t a lot of these children trafficked? And, 5) Will all the families be reunited?
 
In preparation for writing this blog post, I conducted a considerable amount of research, including reviewing public documents received from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reading all pleadings in the ACLU lawsuit filed against the government in March 2018 when the separations began, and other relevant documents. This post represents a summary of key issues related to the family separations, as well as outlining the potential path forward. 

According to President Trump, the Central American families who were separated from their children at the border are for the most part gang members and other criminals, including murderers. But is this accurate?

By Michelle Martin, PhD, MSW

​The Trump administration has referenced several “Dem laws” they claim have tied their hands in the current crisis involving the separation of Central American children from their political asylum-seeking parents. The narrative, according to Sarah Sanders, White House spokesperson, is that President Trump didn’t create the crisis, but is just the first president to “come to the table” and do something about it.
 
The administration was initially somewhat mysterious about what specific laws they were referencing that “only Congress could fix,” so I, along with many others, took shots in the dark in an attempt to untangle the pertinent immigration legislation at play, exploring whether any of them would warrant separating the children from their parents who are being detained while they await their asylum hearing.
 
Since the initial zero-tolerance policy was implemented in April of this year, the administration has been more forthcoming in their legal stance, and several immigration experts have weighed in on the matter. This blog post is an attempt to make sense of the various laws and policies involved in this crisis.