Book Review: Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here

The book Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here by Jonathan Blitzer is a well-written work that feels more like a history book rather than a work on social science or government policy. It describes in detail the horrendous situations forcing the people of Central America to leave their countries and embark on the difficult journey north, hoping to find peace and freedom in the United States. The book also sporadically explains the failures of the U.S. government to adequately address the situation, going all the way back to the 1950s.

This is a large book—about 470 pages, plus almost 30 pages of notes and bibliography—so after all the hype about it being a national bestseller, ranking high on the New York Times, The New Yorker, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and Washington Post book lists, and after listening to an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I was looking forward to finally getting some answers. Sadly, I didn’t find any. As Joel Millman, a reviewer for Harvard’s ReVista, stated, the book “serves mainly as a tutorial—one might argue an encyclopedia—of the history of three Central American republics and their tortured relations with Washington from the 1950s through the present day.”1

I have read many books in which authors did an excellent job laying out the problems, causes, and recommended solutions. Matthew Desmond’s Evicted and Poverty, By America come to mind. But this book primarily narrates the problems faced by immigrants from Central America, using personal stories, before turning to blame the U.S. government for failing to take meaningful action. Most people already know that congressional inaction over the last 50 years is one of the main causes of the crisis, along with the inability of both Democratic and Republican administrations to implement effective foreign policies in Central America. By the way, deporting people is not going to solve the problem if Congress doesn’t pass meaningful immigration reform and turn it into law.

Most of us already know this, so the book isn’t particularly helpful in that regard. It does an excellent job of tracing and identifying the root causes of why Central Americans are leaving their countries, and the notes are incredibly helpful for researchers studying immigration. But the book is unlikely to convince anyone to change their mind for one simple reason: those who support meaningful immigration laws already know the causes and what needs to be done, while those who oppose immigration are firm in their beliefs for reasons I won’t discuss here.

Immigration is not just a U.S. issue. Every week I read articles about migration challenges in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. I understand immigration is a complex subject, but ignoring it won’t solve it. The problem in the U.S. is that our politicians in Congress lack the backbone to address it because they’re afraid of losing elections. Both parties use immigration as a tool to mobilize their bases and gain votes. Solving the problem doesn’t serve their political interests, and the book highlights some of this.

Many people disagree with the current president and how he is handling the border with military deployments. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this approach, but it’s worth noting that similar actions were taken during the Obama era. On pages 290–291, Blitzer writes:

“Obama had entered the White House vowing to protect the undocumented and restrain ICE, but deportations increased steadily during his first two years in office. An average of a thousand immigrants were being removed every day…As the midterms approached, Democrats in border states faced a Republican onslaught, and, as usual, immigration made them vulnerable. At one point, Gabby Giffords, the Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, contacted the White House with a plea. ‘You have to call up the National Guard on the border,’ she said. ‘I’m going to lose my reelection unless I can show that we are serious about border security.’”

Here are a couple of examples of politics at play:

“In May (1981), a well-connected California farmer sent an angry letter to William French Smith, Reagan’s Attorney General, complaining about INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) activity in Fresno. Arrests by Border Patrol, he claimed, were costing him an average of seventeen hundred workers each month. He was losing crops. Reagan himself maintained a permissive, laissez-faire view of immigration that put him closer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than to the populist wing of his party.” (pp. 107–108)

“In 2006, a bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John McCain passed the Senate but wasn’t taken up in the House. The Bush White House supported this version, and Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Yet there were other complications. For one, McCain was no longer a sponsor. He was preparing to run in the Republican primary for president and had decided to keep his distance from controversial legislation. The fact that advocates and a bipartisan group of senators were on the verge of giving millions of people a path to citizenship had galvanized the opposition.” (p. 271)

We all know that legislation didn’t pass.

To me, part of the solution to our immigration problem was outlined by a commission formed by Congress in 1978, called the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. “This commission consisted of sixteen members picked by the president, the Speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. Its director was Theodore Hesburgh, a Roman Catholic priest and head of the University of Notre Dame, who had been an adviser and bipartisan confidant to American presidents for more than two decades.” (p. 108)

The commission provided the following recommendations:

“The recommendations were built around a premise that neither political party could easily dismiss—as Hesburgh put it, ‘closing the back door to undocumented-illegal immigration’ and ‘opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal immigration in the interests of the country.’ The government needed to enhance border enforcement by increasing its annual funding. But it also had to reduce the size of the undocumented population in the U.S. by legalizing millions of immigrants already living in the country. The third and most politically complicated recommendation was to penalize employers who knowingly hired workers without legal papers.” (pp. 108–109)

I wish the author had focused the book, or at least a few chapters, on unpacking this recommendation and why Congress has been incapable of acting on it, creating a bill, and passing it into law all these years. Readers would also benefit from exploring which sensible foreign policies are needed to improve the quality of life in Central America so people can remain in their home countries. The author failed to discuss this in detail.

I recommend this book to researchers studying the causes of migration from Central America, given its extensive notes. For everyone else, reputable news sources, or even asking ChatGPT, can provide enough information about the causes. 

About the Author:

Jonathan Blitzer is a staff writer at The New Yorker. He has won a National Award for Education Reporting as well as an Edward R. Murrow Award, and was a 2021 Emerson Fellow at New America.

  1. https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-review-of-everyone-who-is-gone-is-here-the-united-states-central-america-and-the-making-of-a-crisis/ ↩︎

50 thoughts on “Book Review: Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here”

  1. Thank you for taking the deep plunge into this book and breaking it down for us, Edward. At one point, I wanted to write a book about immigration, but the more I read, the more confused about the issues, solutions, and my feelings about it that I let it go. The topic is complicated because we are dealing with humanity and endless personal needs and reasonings for migration.

    We have the advantage in the US of moving in any direction within our vast country. If we don’t like the environment or cannot find employment, resources, and such, we can move. Smaller countries, such as those in Europe or South America, cannot do this without moving to a different country.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Mary. You made an excellent point about the ability to move around in this country. The vast diversity in the U.S. helps as well. Depending on an individual’s political tendencies, conservative or liberal, or personal needs, you can choose any of our 50 states to live in with no restrictions, which is amazing. Other countries, as you said, don’t have that. It’s a very complicated subject, especially when immigration is at the core of this country.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Hi, Edward! You’ve presented a thoughtful review of this book. We don’t need more immigration laws. The laws already on the books have to be enforced. Both parties have been responsible for encouraging cheap labor by illegal immigrants. It’s actually against the law to hire illegal immigrants. Migrant laborers have a legal right to come into the United States, work, and then go home. It’s a contractual agreement. When I lived in California, this was common practice in the agricultural industry. Nobody objected. It’s the “go home” part that is in play. The CIA and other USA agencies have been involved in a lot of shady shenanigans in Central and South America. There’s no doubt about that. But, this does not excuse the massive trade in drugs and human lives coming over the border. Human trafficking in people wanting to come to the United States is just modern slavery. The people in debt to the cartels and coyotes will never be free from the debt. And the abuse of women and children is abhorrent. It’s not humane, it’s torture. And asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Mexico wants new laborers for their factories, and they’ve encouraged people from other countries to stay in Mexico. There is a legal process for coming into the USA, just like there is in every other country. People who don’t respect the legal process cannot be trusted to respect American laws, culture, and traditions. And that’s exactly what we’ve witnessed. NOBODY is entitled to live in the USA except American-born citizens. America and its taxpayers are not obligated to support the whole world. We know the causes, and we already know the solutions. I support legal immigration. I don’t agree that illegal immigrants should be allowed to cross our borders. FOLLOW THE PROCESS!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Dawn, and I agree that both parties are responsible for what’s going on. U.S. born citizens have an automatic right to live in the USA, but others can live here legally through naturalization, permanent residency, refugee status, or visas. The taxes part is interesting, and there are ongoing discussions about the impact of losing revenue at the city and county level across the U.S. due to the removal of undocumented immigrants, since those extra taxes we see on receipts for gas, groceries, etc., help fund roads, transportation, infrastructure, and public services. Still, there are unresolved issues, and either new laws are needed or we need competent people in Congress who can discuss the problem rationally to reach a solution. I also read about Mexico wanting to keep them in-country to fill labor shortages, and that seems like a great solution. We’ll see where all this goes, but I’m not too optimistic.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Hi Edward, I think immigrants are often ignorant of the realities of the country they go to. We have a huge immigrant issue in SA. We get desperate people from all over Africa. Some face the danger of walking through the Kruger National Park to get here. There is generally nothing for them here as we have a massive unemployment rate and they don’t qualify for social welfare. There only options are begging or crime.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Robbie, and there is a lot of truth in what you said. I’ve seen a few immigrants in my state of Illinois and our neighboring state, Iowa, begging at traffic lights. There is definitely a disconnect and a lack of information to help them make the right decisions. I also understand that some of them are just trying to escape violence or war, and they make decisions simply to stay alive.

      Like

      Reply

  5. We’ve visited Belize, Costa Rica, and Panama. We have long time friends who retired from Canada to Costa Rica. They have a small coffee plantation and love it there. They intend to stay there until the end of their days. What we noticed while visiting these three countries was the massive gap between wealth and poverty, but you know what … we see that all over North America too. I guess what I don’t understand is the desire to get out of a country being so strong that people risk life, limb, family, and deportation back to an uncertain punishment, do just that. It has to be bad beyond comprehension for people to take those risks. Two years ago, in South Texas, the bridge from our nearest Mexican border town became a tent city of Europeans fleeing the Ukraine. These people were documented and waiting legal processing, but even with that, they waited for weeks, sleeping in tents on that bridge. These folks, regardless of what they’re fleeing and how they choose to do it, make me all the more appreciative of where I landed in life.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Terry, for sharing your experience. It’s a very complex problem, but I sometimes wonder about the same thing. I know many people who suffer in silence, accepting the environment they’re in. I know a lot of people in Puerto Rico who are not in the best economic situation but refuse to move to other places on the island to improve their lives. They’re afraid of change. Some people in Central America have no other option but to embark on a dangerous journey in search of a better and more peaceful life. I think some governments in the region are designed that way, they want loyalists, and only those individuals receive benefits, while the rest are pushed aside with nowhere to go. Why don’t they stay, organize, and fight back? That’s the question that runs through my mind. But then I think about the Europeans who left their homes and embarked on a journey into the unknown, arriving in North America and creating what we now know as the United States, and I find some answers there.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking review. Your call for recommendations that help at home in the US and in foreign policy instead of continuing to do what we are makes so much sense. Thank you, Edward!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. Great review! Here in Australia we don’t have the same border problems as many other nations, but we still have our fair share of debate regarding migration numbers (our responsibility to our neighbors, what quotas should look like AND the consequences to those who are already here.) It’s a tricky one… I wouldn’t like to have to decide which way to go, I just hope people can be as empathetic as possible when making the rules. Linda xx

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Linda. I think the key is having respectful dialogue with people and truly listening to their concerns. Compromise is important because governments can’t please everyone, but most concerns should be addressed. When that doesn’t happen, you end up with divisions, and that’s exactly what we’re experiencing now with this issue.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. We also have it with climate change – it is a very divisive topic here, and a lot of the nuance gets lost when big loud voices are yelling each other down… it’s a shame (I often imagine what it would be like if we went back to the Roman forum… but I think we might have more in common with the gladiators instead!!) Linda

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  9. Hi, Ed. As always, you bring information that provokes serious thought about what is going on, not only in this country, but all over the world. We need each other and the immigration process now is very destructive. It was interesting to me that an answer brought up in 1978 could not be enforced, as stated by Susana. The greed and selfishness of our politicians gets worse year by year. There are no instant cures for the chaos we are currently in the midst of. However, when we can think about the long-term good for everyone, we would all be blessed. We will continue to have wrinkles to work out, but at the rate we going now, trouble is brewing to a boil. Dismissing people from other countries is not the answer. American is not better than other countries above all else. Every country has something to offer for the betterment of mankind. Thank you for sharing your reviews. I always learn so much from reading your posts. And yes, I am playing catch up.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Sandra, for your thoughtful comment. Greed and selfishness are certainly at the center of all of this. I’m reading another book that highlights how, while the South was implementing poll taxes and literacy tests to suppress voting, a couple of states in the North were doing the same to suppress Irish Catholics. This country has some very bad habits, and we’re seeing those reflected in our current environment, especially toward immigrants. I’m still hopeful though.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. We have to hold on to hope in the midst of the chaos. For those who sincerely seek to help others, it is what keeps fueling new ideas and forging ahead. We do have to remember though that God is still sovereign.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  10. Sounds like the book is good for history of Central America, but short on solutions. I think solutions are difficult to find because the problems are deep seated in US interventions in the region. If we can increase employment and democracy south of the border, people may have more reasons to stay home.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. We should encourage young people to come in, because we’re going to depend on them not just to boost birth rates, but also to enter the workforce as older people move toward retirement. We also need many more people to support long-term and elderly care, which is urgently needed right now. Thank you, Rojie.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  12. as a country, we have taken a reactive, rather than proactive approach to immigration for far too long. it is way past time for our politicians to stop worrying about their popularity polls and focus on the future of the country. consider the long game.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  13. From what I’ve heard from former Aid and Peace Corps volunteers) American intervention has only made things worse. We should be focused on how our own systems are being eroded by greed otherwise, I believe we will become like them. I know many young Americans who are selling everything to leave this country and get established elsewhere. It’s already happening here.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I agree, and I believe in collaboration rather than intervention. Things tend to go wrong every time we try to change other countries. I also know some people who decided to leave, mostly for Europe. We definitely need to focus on fixing our internal problems, which are eroding our standing in the world. Like you said, greed is the root of many of our issues.

      Like

      Reply

  14. I look forward to your thoughtful reviews, Edward and especially this insight about the book:
    “It does an excellent job of tracing and identifying the root causes of why Central Americans are leaving their countries, and the notes are incredibly helpful for researchers studying immigration.”
    And your observation about the mistake of deporting people without immigration reform sounds right on to me. Grateful to you for sharing. 💝

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  15. It’s interesting that a straightforward recommendation of 1978 is still ignored these days: “closing the back door to undocumented-illegal immigration and opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal immigration in the interests of the country.” It cannot be that hard… unless there’s no willingness to deal with and solve this issue. Your reviews always help me to get a broader view of our world. This one was no exception! And so, thank you, Edward, for breaking it up for me! Always glad to read your posts. With appreciation, sending you blessings and light and wishing you a peaceful day 🙏✨🌞

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, my friend. I’m afraid the desire of our politicians to win elections and retain power, primarily to increase their personal wealth, is outweighing any genuine intent to solve the problem. The immigration debate provides them with a platform to remain in power, and as long as they view it through that lens, nothing will change. I truly appreciate your presence here. 🙏🏼

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. Gosh, Edward, you tackle such deep books and review them in such a comprehensive and articulate way. Such a critic topic, almost existential for the world. Central American refugees can be “studied” as one of many, many groups of people fleeing intolerable circumstances for many, many different reasons: economic impossibilities, persecution, torture, you name it. And increasingly the world will be able to add climate change refugees to the list, when people’s countries have been turned to deserts or have been submerged by rising seas, all because of continuing actions by the developed world. It may be that this book really couldn’t offer a way forward, given the inaction or cruel reaction to date, but the immigration issue is not going to go away. Thanks for another insightful and honest review.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you for adding climate change to the discussion. You’re absolutely right that those changes are going to contribute, and in some places are already contributing, to an increase in people moving to other countries. The other day I read about an island in the Pacific that is disappearing due to the rising ocean, so those people will have to relocate. Inaction, bullying, and isolationism are not going to save the day. Collaboration and sharing resources will.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  17. What you express in the following is also my take on the challenges of immigration:

    “Readers would also benefit from exploring which sensible foreign policies are needed to improve the quality of life in Central America so people can remain in their home countries. The author failed to discuss this in detail.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  19. great review. immigration is an area that has to be addressed sooner rather than later. I have my own opinions on it that I may or may not put on the blog but it will both be based on humanitarian and pragmatic approaches.

    again, great review. and it is impressive you got through a 430 page text like that. it must have been a great stamina test of your reading and an enjoyable one. Mike

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much, Mike, and I understand. I probably have some of the same thoughts that you do. Books like this one give me the opportunity to be critical and “argue” with the author while I read through it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  20. Thank you, Edward. One of the subjects often lost in the immigration conversation is a reduction in population growth. Indeed, first world nations that have incentivized having more children have found that it is virtually impossible to get the native population of a country to do so.

    Why is this needed! Think of the jobs the citizens of the USA do not want to do, as well as the beneficiaries of the welfare state (including this recipient of Social Security) who depend on large numbers of younger people to fund Social Security, without whom it will collapse.

    One of the advantages to the US of incoming immigrants from poor countries is that the immigrants will produce more children than the native population will. Indeed, they produce a larger number than the replacement value needed to keep the population stable, at least for a couple of generations..

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Dr. Stein, and thank you for your comment. Not too long ago, I read that our population is going to be reduced significantly due to current immigration policies, and fertility rates are not likely to increase any time soon, especially under current conditions, where families are not getting the support they need. We are going to lose a lot, including revenue, because of all the city and county taxes immigrants pay every time they buy groceries, gas, and so on. We will be in big trouble if we don’t address the immigration issue by providing a process for people to come to our country legally, giving those who want to stay a path to citizenship, and at the same time adequately funding border operations so they can protect it and expedite the entry of immigrants. I think we should provide a path to citizenship for all the undocumented immigrants currently in our country and put the right immigration laws in place to regulate entry afterward.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to Rebecca Cuningham Cancel reply