If you weren’t following immigration during the first Trump administration, or just need a refresher, read “Broken Hope: Deportation and the Road Home” by Lynn Tramonte and Suma Setty, with research by Maryam Sy.
Read the free e-book or purchase a paperback copy through our affiliate link on Bookshop.org.
Kirkus Review calls the book “compelling.”
“Their study focuses primarily on the effects on families, leading to analyses of the larger impacts on communities and society as a whole. Many of the personal stories referenced stem from ‘massive, SWAT-team style raids’ throughout northern Ohio conducted by Trump’s ICE following his election and contain devastating testimony from the individuals who lived these experiences. Tramonte and Setty dig into research on the layers of harm resulting from events such as loss of income, children falling into poverty, mental health issues, physical health issues, and more. This research informs their concrete analysis as they go through the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations to detail how systemic racism has affected immigration law and how more and more people have become eligible for deportation. The authors conclude with recommendations for improving the system.”
The reviewer goes on to note, “Tramonte and Setty’s breakdown of immigration policy across administrations is particularly enlightening and insightful, and the stories they have collected are potent and powerful, such as that of Seyni Diagne, who received no treatment for his cancer or hepatitis C, neither in ICE detention nor after being sent to jail in Mauritania, his country of origin.”
It goes on to critique the book, saying that our “use of a personal perspective versus a more critical, scientific eye feels unbalanced; certain stories are referenced anecdotally without the same background or gravitas as others. Even as it builds to a compelling thesis on immigration, the book feels unsure of the best rhetorical strategy for getting there.”
As a book editor myself, I find this criticism completely confusing. How are we simultaneously “digging into research on the layers of harm” and failing to use a “critical, scientific eye?” We use stories as examples to illustrate findings from our own, and others’ research. Isn’t that the definition of an “anecdote,” and why is that a negative? If you read the book, you’ll know that our “anecdotes” are dripping with gravitas. People being ripped from their homes, families, and livelihoods overnight. Shackled in chains. Thrown onto charter flights and dropped off in countries they fled and still fear, in the middle of the night. All because of a change in policy, a change in political administrations.
(I should mention that the original review incorrectly criticized our formatting of first-person citations. I pointed out Kirkus’ error and was able to get it fixed before the review was published. But errors of analysis are not up for revision, apparently.)
If lived experiences are not serious, then I don’t know what is. “Broken Hope” is not a “rhetorical strategy;” it’s real life. Read it yourself and let us know what you think.