This was an illuminating and surprisingly often sweet and funny listen, though its center is the personal impact of US immigration "policy," something that is not sweet or funny at all. This is a 3-star I think everyone should read. Its not average as the star-rating implies. It is truly worth reading, though really flawed.
The way in which the US treats black and brown immigrants has been one of the greatest shames of the 19th-21st centuries, but the Trump administration upped the ante. We began subjecting people, whose only crime was a wish for a better life and consequent penetration of a national boundary, to horrors we would (most likely) not deploy against murders, rapists, and enemy combatants. People hiding in plain sight for years were suddenly being scooped up (often as a result of complying with the mandatory reporting rules that had been set before as a condition for remaining in the US) and sent to countries to which they often no longer have any connection and sometimes where they face physical danger. The author shares stories of people impacted in an engaging and edifying way. That said, things get a little complicated when Villavicencio weaves together memoir, reporting, and political polemic. I know this has become a thing that many authors to, and has been done in books I liked very much, but the balancing act is a hard one, and this author (who clearly has a hard time compartmentalizing/ maintaining appropriate boundaries in general) did not balance.
To be fair the author does not fail, so much as she makes no attempt, to maintain any sort of journalistic objectivity. She explicitly says, somewhere, near the halfway point as I recall, that this is not reporting and that she is not objective. But. She sort of holds herself out as a reporter until she doesn't, and it becomes hard to figure out what she wants the book to be. If it is a memoir, that is fine -- she has a particular story to tell and she is a hell of a good storyteller. But if its a memoir what is the point of her hauling herself to Florida and Michigan to tell these other stories. Do they bolster her tale, add dimension? They are interesting stories which not told nearly often enough, but did they belong in the middle of one woman's attempt to find her place in the American immigrant story?
I was honored to have access to these other stories. I loved that she did not fall into the trap of portraying immigrants as "the wretched" Most of the people we meet find joy and pleasure in their lives. They are not perfect, they are sometimes generous and sometimes selfish and petty, they are abused and abusers, they are hard working and not. They are people navigating a cruel and insane system and they are just trying to survive. These are stories I want to hear, stories that create connection. I just didn't understand what this author was doing with them. These people shared difficult stories, for some stories that embarrassed them or put them at risk, and then the author made their stories all about her (and sometimes about her dog.) These brave amazing people deserved more. Also, I am not sure why the Flint story was even included. I am from Michigan, have friends and family who were impacted by the water crisis, and this is a story I want more people to hear. I do think the Flint story is in part about disenfranchisement. Flint is pervasively poor and majority black. The Flint Latinx population is pretty small, about 4% of the population, and though Latinx people's access to clean water was impeded by government ID requirements for free bottled water, its a small part of a giant terrible story which was not given its due in this portrayal. I want to read that book, but relegating it to a chapter in a book about something else took the wind out of its sails.
In addition to not really framing what story she wants to tell, I suspect Villavincencio hasn't quite figured out how to feel about many things, things she alternately celebrates and shits all over. Her own failure to understand who she is in the world she inhabits is, I suspect, to blame for a lot of the muddiness. There is so much good here, so much worth reading, but it would have all been so much better if it had been delivered as two separate books, each with less gut-feeling unsupported opinion and a clearer sense of authorial purpose. But read it anyway.