By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Mario Guevara, an Emmy award-winning immigrant journalist, believes he may have been the first deported under the Trump administration, warning other immigrant journalists to be cautious of aggressive immigration agents who do not respect the media. Guevara was deported on October 3rd following his arrest while live-streaming an anti-Trump protest, despite having a work permit and two U.S. citizen children. Legal proceedings followed, with Guevara’s lawyers arguing his detention aimed to silence his reporting, a claim countered by the administration. His deportation, a result of his reopened immigration case, left him with a brief goodbye to his family and the loss of his American dream.
Read the original article here
The Atlanta journalist’s prediction that he won’t be the only one facing deportation by Trump officials certainly carries a chilling weight, a feeling that something far more extensive is already underway. It’s hard not to feel a sense of dread when considering the potential for widespread targeting, a fear that seems to be creeping into more and more conversations. The core of this concern revolves around the idea that those who don’t align with a certain ideology will ultimately be vulnerable.
Looking at the history books, one has to question the immigration statuses of those who are currently shielded from scrutiny. The passive response from certain political factions raises legitimate concerns, especially when contrasted with the swiftness with which others are affected. The fact that someone with a work permit and a pending green card can be swept up in this, highlights a broken process, where ongoing cases are easily dismissed. The chilling reality of yearly hearings, where individuals face the scrutiny of those looking to remove them, only makes the situation worse. It makes you realize that what the journalist sees as “won’t be” is likely “already not” true.
There’s a clear sentiment of frustration with the current political strategies. The suggestion is to abandon the idea of appearing as the more “reasonable” party. It’s a call to arms for more aggressive messaging, to fight fire with fire and to stop being hesitant about “getting down in the mud” with the opposing side. What’s needed is energy, a willingness to get angry and to call things out plainly. The sentiment is that being viewed as weak and indecisive is counterproductive.
What’s being suggested is a more “human” approach. Politicians are encouraged to act like actual people, someone you might meet on the street, and express the shared frustrations and anger that everyday people are feeling. The emphasis is on energy and authenticity. In the face of blatant lies, it’s not enough to simply “fact-check” – that approach simply does not seem to be working.
The focus then shifts to the need to challenge the other side head-on. The idea is to laugh at those who would inflict harm. Humor, used with purpose, can be a way to disarm and destabilize the opposition. The use of this approach can cause them to be confused.
The importance of this comes back to needing a more impactful strategy in modern politics. The feeling is that the existing strategies are not working. There is an increasing sense that the Democrats are becoming trapped by the idea of political decorum, and are instead failing to fight back with enough force.
There is a discussion of the need for changes in political leadership, specifically moving toward people who are not seen as the well-connected, out of touch, “West Wing” archetype. There is a desire for people in power who share the same anxieties and feelings as the average voter. What’s required is a new approach.