Rethinking Immigration: Lessons from the ‘No Kings’ March

Today, I attended the “No Kings” march. The crowd seemed smaller than at previous demonstrations I’ve attended, but the messages on the posters stayed the same. Signs scattered throughout the gathering condemned ICE, challenged its tactics, demanded accountability, and called for the agency’s abolition.

A person taking a selfie at the Boulder Farmers Market, with information booths and a crowd visible in the background. The person wears sunglasses and a cap, and there are colorful market tents set up.

Those signs got me thinking about how we arrived at this moment and whether we’ve learned anything from our history.

Controlling borders and regulating immigration are legitimate government responsibilities. How we carry out those responsibilities matters. An immigration system that separates families, instills fear in communities, and treats people as security threats before considering their individual circumstances deserves more than a budget increase and a political talking point.

It deserves a fundamental rethink.

How We Got Here

Immigration enforcement in the United States didn’t always work the way we know it today.

The U.S. Customs Service dates to 1789, when the federal government needed to collect tariffs and generate revenue. The Immigration Act of 1891 established a centralized federal role in immigration control. The following year, Ellis Island opened as a major immigration inspection station. Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol in 1924 to police land borders between official ports of entry.

In 1933, the government consolidated immigration functions into the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In 1940, the agency transferred to the Department of Justice and administered legal immigration and naturalization while enforcing immigration laws and deporting people who violated them.

That arrangement had its shortcomings, but it recognized that immigration involved more than enforcement. People applied for citizenship. Others faced removal proceedings.

Then came September 11, 2001.

A view of a street with a construction fence and debris in the background, showing the remains of a demolished building. A person in a coat stands on the sidewalk, with other buildings and cables visible.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The government dismantled the INS and transferred its functions, along with those of the U.S. Customs Service, into the newly established Department of Homeland Security.

By 2003, three agencies had taken shape:

  • U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (CIS), responsible for administering lawful immigration and citizenship applications.
  • Customs and Border Protection (CBP), responsible for border security and enforcement at ports of entry.
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), responsible for interior immigration enforcement, detention, deportation, and certain criminal investigations.

The restructuring reflected a new national security environment, placing immigration enforcement within a department built to protect the country from security threats.

Crossing a border unlawfully is not automatically the same thing as posing a threat to national security. Yet the post-9/11 framework embeds immigration enforcement within a broader security system, where the tools, priorities, and institutional culture emphasize apprehension and removal over the circumstances of individual people.

We should be asking whether that approach serves the country today.

Reagan, IRCA, and a Different Approach

Immigration reform wasn’t always the political third rail it has become.

A blue campaign button featuring the word 'REAGAN' in bold white letters, with the slogan 'Let's make America great again' underneath.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The law provided a path to legal status for approximately 2.7 million undocumented immigrants who met its eligibility requirements, including continuous residence in the United States since January 1, 1982.

Reagan understood that millions of people had already established lives here. They worked, raised families, paid bills, and contributed to their communities. Removing everyone who lacked legal status would have been an enormous undertaking, with consequences extending far beyond the individuals targeted.

IRCA offered a compromise. It combined legalization for eligible immigrants with employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized workers and increased resources for immigration enforcement. The legislation was imperfect, and its enforcement provisions created their own problems. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that a conservative president and a bipartisan Congress could acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: an immigration system that ignores the lives people have built here will never resolve the problem simply by ordering them to leave.

I have a personal reason for thinking about that history.

The Tanaka Farm: A Local Lesson in Immigration Policy

Near Longmont, the history of the Tanaka Brothers Farms offers a revealing local chapter in the complicated relationship between agriculture, immigration, and federal policy.

A weathered white building with a red roof is situated in an open field, surrounded by sparse trees and grass under a partly cloudy sky.

The Tanaka family’s agricultural story stretches back through the experiences of Japanese Americans who built lives and businesses in Colorado, including people whose families endured incarceration during World War II. The family’s farming operation relied on immigrant labor.

IRCA’s employer-sanctions provisions eventually extended to agricultural employers, bringing new compliance obligations to an industry dependent on seasonal labor. By the early 1990s, the Tanaka Brothers Farms operation had entered bankruptcy proceedings.

The timing invites questions about how immigration policy, labor requirements, agricultural economics, and the treatment of farmworkers intersected. It does not, by itself, establish that IRCA caused the farm’s collapse. That history deserves a closer look at the evidence, the decisions, and the people who lived through the consequences.

Three individuals engaged in conversation by a gate outdoors, with a grassy area and a building in the background.

I’m pursuing those questions in a book and documentary project that examines the Tanaka farm and the larger agricultural history of the Boulder-Longmont area, including the Japanese American community, migrant labor, and the forces that shaped who worked the land—and who ultimately benefited from it.

Local history can reveal what national political arguments often obscure. Immigration policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It reaches into fields, workplaces, families, and communities, with consequences that can last for generations.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Today’s turnout may have been smaller than I expected. That doesn’t make its message less urgent. Public attention comes and goes, but federal enforcement policies continue to affect people’s lives long after demonstrators return home.

A person wearing a gray beanie holds a cardboard sign that reads 'Melt Ice' at a protest, with other protesters and signs visible in the background.

We need to distinguish between enforcing immigration law and treating enforcement itself as the ultimate goal.

An alternative would preserve legitimate border controls while establishing clear limits on enforcement powers, meaningful independent oversight, due process, and humane treatment. It would create workable legal pathways for people with deep roots here, meet the demand for immigrant labor, and let employers and workers comply with the law without turning entire communities into targets.

We should also ask whether ICE, as currently structured, is the best way to accomplish those objectives. No federal agency deserves immunity from scrutiny because Congress created it, presidents reshaped it, and changing political priorities gave it new missions.

What government builds, government can change.

Reagan’s IRCA compromise reminds us that immigration policy need not be a choice between unrestricted entry and mass deportation. The history of the Tanaka farm reminds us that federal decisions can have consequences far beyond the halls of Congress and the headlines of the day.

The “No Kings” march reminded me that government derives its authority from the people. That principle must mean more than showing up with a sign once or twice a year. It means insisting that government agencies remain accountable to the public they serve.

If our immigration system produces fear without lasting solutions, divides families without addressing the forces that draw people here, and consumes public resources without resolving the problems it was created to solve, then defending the status quo is not responsible governance. It is a refusal to learn.

We can secure our borders without abandoning our humanity. We can enforce laws without treating every undocumented person as a threat. And we can demand accountability without pretending that the only choices are to accept the system as it stands or abolish every form of immigration enforcement.

That work shouldn’t end when the march ends.

Navigating Happiness: Lessons Across Generations

Raymond Notaro grew up in Clinton, Massachusetts, a small town (Pop. 15,000) with a blue-collar character and, as he describes it, a rougher edge. He and I come from different generations, but our conversations kept bringing us back to a familiar place: the experiences that shape us may look different across generations, yet the lessons learned remain the same.

Our intergenerational writing class is exploring “The Pursuit of Happiness.” Twenty University of Colorado upperclass students each pair up with 20 community members. We do some in-class writing in response to prompts, then discuss what comes to mind.

When Ray and I compared our similar interpretations of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I wondered whether happiness might have less to do with climbing toward the top than with figuring out when we have enough.

We’re both pursuing happiness. Ray figured out what took me seven decades to learn.

At 73, I’ve spent a lifetime wandering Superman’s American Way. You know, “faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive,” bigger is better than weaker, richer is better than poorer, winning is better than losing as we fight for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”

Ray approaches Maslow from a different direction. Fifty-two years younger than me, Ray has a head start on minimalist happiness. He describes self-actualization as meeting his physiological and safety needs and doesn’t need to climb any higher.

“Give me a granola bar, a bottle of water, a place to sleep, and I’m good,” he told me. Ray likes to camp. He recounted a recent outing to the Bridger-Teton National Forest. “We didn’t think about going to Grand Teton National Park or Yellowstone.”

I worked, accumulated possessions, collected baseball cards, and filled my days with the ordinary stuff of life, wondering if I needed more. I thought of self-actualization as a point in life I would reach through experience, accomplishment, and accumulation. Like many Americans, I’d spent decades adding layers to my life.

Now I’m peeling them away.

Ray won’t have layers to shed.

After being reminded how a 1,000-year flood or an urban wildfire can wipe out the material aspects of life, Swedish death cleaning has become part of my routine. I’m sorting through possessions, simplifying my surroundings, and reconsidering what I need to get by. I’m a regular on Facebook Marketplace.

Meeting with Ray reinforced my downward slide and my happiness in the basics: physical needs, safety, and striving for the Dalai Lama’s notion of nothingness.

I accumulated far more than I ever needed. I’ve been letting go.

I envy Ray.

“I’m majoring in International Relations.” He has studied in Germany and wants to visit every country. He showed me a metal ring with charms his mother gave him from the 21 countries he’s visited. “I want a job that allows me to travel. I’m filling out an application to study abroad again.”

Ray’s happy to claw his way toward the middle of Maslow’s hierarchy, laying the foundation for a life that doesn’t require much more than enough to create meaningful experiences.

I made it to the top, but I had to stop.

I ran out of time.

Ray hasn’t, and he’s not wasting his.

Our paths look different, but we’re heading toward a similar understanding of happiness. Ray is building a life around having just enough. I learned that my enough is too much after a lifetime of wanting more.

Our conversation led us to the people who have taught us how to live. Ray played soccer for the Clinton High School Gaels and started all four years. The coaches named him to the Midland Wachusett League All-Conference team. He had opportunities to play at the next level at the University of New England or Stonehill.

“I needed to get out of Clinton,” he said about moving out of his hometown. “I came out for a ski trip. Visited Boulder and decided on CU. Good vibe here. Clinton isn’t that far away, really. I’ll be going home for a reunion with my family and friends at the end of October for my birthday.”

I asked Ray to tell me about an adult outside his family who had a positive influence on him and instilled a lesson he still carries today.

He told me about his four-year physical education teacher, Mr. Paul Zapantis.

“Mr. Zapantis chaperoned a high school trip to Europe my senior year. He’s an adult I could talk to in confidence. He taught and also worked at the funeral home. I could visit him there.”

In small towns, people often work more than one job. When I lived in Lander, a town of 7,000, I worked in the city administration and also covered sports for the twice-weekly local paper.

“Clinton’s a rough town.” On account of that, Ray explained that his high school maintained strict rules. Authority figures enforced discipline and expected students to follow directions. Zapantis took a different approach. “He trusted us.”

Rather than relying on rules and punishment, Zapantis treated young people with respect. He set expectations and trusted his students to meet them. Ray remembers that Zapantis established a standard students didn’t want to disappoint.

“Some adults are scary. Mr. Zapantis is a good guy. When we came back from Europe, he invited us out for breakfast at Lou’s Diner. Six in the morning. We all showed up. He gave me the travel bug.”

Ray told me about the biggest lesson he learned from studying abroad in Germany in 2025.

“A group of us went to Munich for Oktoberfest.” He recalled. “A bunch of Dutch guys were singing a song about Max Verstappen [a well-known Formula 1 race car driver from the Netherlands]. We joined in the fun. The police showed up and detained us, not for drinking. One of the Dutch kids looked like he gave the Nazi salute [After World War II, the German government criminalized anything promoting Nazism]. They detained me, but they mostly wanted the Dutch kid.”

What struck me about Ray’s story is that he realized what he had learned from Zapantis extends to a higher level. In environments like his school and in Germany, where strict rules governed much of life, there’s a distinction between demanding good behavior and inspiring it. It’s important to build relationships, but to act responsibly.

Ray told me that respect works both ways. An adult who respects a young person sends a message that the young person matters, that someone believes in them, and that they have a responsibility to live up to that belief.

Zapantis raised the bar by trusting his students to reach it.

Ray also spoke about his supportive family. His father’s family immigrated from Sardinia, while his mother’s roots reach back to Ireland. Their experiences reminded me of my family’s history as Japanese immigrants. Our families came from different parts of the world, but both encountered the challenges of finding acceptance and belonging in America.

Our shared experiences gave me another point of connection with Ray. Our families carried their cultural traditions and experiences into an America that didn’t always welcome immigrants with open arms. The details differ, but the desire to belong, be treated fairly, be respected, and build a secure life crosses generations.

That’s another reason Ray’s story about Zapantis resonated with me. Respect shapes how people, young and old, should see themself, how they treat others, and what they expect from the world.

As Ray and I talked, I kept returning to our opposite, yet similar approaches to Maslow’s hierarchy. I began my journey believing that happiness meant being like Superman, reaching higher, achieving more, accumulating the rewards of life.

Ray is reimagining Superman’s American Way. He’s content to establish a solid foundation and build a life around what he considers essential.

The pursuit of happiness doesn’t necessarily mean climbing higher or grasping for more.

Ray is beginning with the basics. I’m trying to return to them. Our conversation reminded me that happiness isn’t a destination reserved for the accomplished or those who have accumulated the most.

For Ray, the lesson began with a teacher who trusted him enough to act respectfully and to do no harm. For me, it’s taken decades of living, collecting, and now letting go to recognize how much of life depends on what we give one another, rather than take.

I doubt that I’ll reach the Dalai Lama’s nothingness because I spend too much time watching Netflix and sports. Ray has a better chance of traveling to 172 remaining nations. That’s beside the point. Our paths don’t have to match for the lessons to connect.

Ray carries Mr. Zapantis’s influence forward by treating people with respect. He extends the trust that helped shape him. Knowing a caring adult believed in you, and then carrying that belief into the lives of others, may be the most enduring form of happiness.

I spent much of my life believing happiness awaited me near the top of Maslow’s mountain. Ray, 50 years younger, reminded me that the top is closer to the ground.

Ray has a granola bar, a bottle of water, a room, and an airplane ticket. I have another carload of boxes I’m packing to donate to the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming.

The way up is climbing down.

Views from Inside the Windshielf: Police Ride-Along Insights

I mark the arrival of fall with a tradition that’s become as much a part of my seasonal routine as watching the leaves turn between Nederland and Ward: my annual ride-along with a Boulder police officer.

A selfie of two men inside a police vehicle; one man is wearing a gray sweatshirt and smiling, while the police officer, wearing a uniform and glasses, smiles next to him.

As a member of the City of Boulder Police Oversight Panel (BPOP), I’m required to check out our fair city from the passenger seat of a Boulder police cruiser. The city manager appoints 11 panel members, including two college students.

Many of you don’t live in Boulder. I suggest you check out police oversight in your community. They’re all different.

Fortunately, I’ve never had to experience Boulder from the backseat of a police cruiser. My only recent encounter with law enforcement involved a photo radar van that caught me speeding on Glenwood Avenue between 28th and 30th streets. I’d much rather be caught by radar and mailed a ticket than be stopped for half an hour or more.

I suspect most Boulder residents, including myself, have had little, if any, direct contact with law enforcement. A ride-along offers a glimpse into a world most of us know only through news reports, TV dramas, or the occasional flashing lights in our rearview mirrors.

Notice of Violation issued by the City of Boulder, detailing a photo enforcement program for traffic laws, featuring an image of a driver.

This year, I signed up for Watch 1, the early-morning shift. At 6 a.m., I met Sgt. Faber in the police station lobby before roll call. I knew the drill. The shift begins with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by general information and updates. This morning’s training covered probable cause and searches, a subject I found interesting.

The legal boundaries governing police searches have evolved considerably since the days of Eliot Ness and his “Untouchables,” the handpicked Prohibition agents who stormed into warehouses with Tommy guns, chasing after Al Capone and his bootlegged whiskey.

Today, probable cause, constitutional protections, and search rules shape what officers can and cannot do in the field. For example, there’s a big difference between an open baggie and a sealed one. A traffic stop for a busted taillight does not mean an officer can look in the trunk unless the driver gives permission.

The training reminded me that police work involves much more than responding to calls. Officers must understand the law and make decisions within its boundaries, often under difficult circumstances.

A police training session in a classroom setting, with officers seated at tables and a speaker presenting concepts related to probable cause and searches on a screen.

On my first ride-along two years ago on Watch 2, with recall at 2:00 p.m., we responded to a noise complaint at dusk. Before getting out of the car, the officer looked up the hours the city code allows loud noise. It turned out the contractor was well within the limits. The officer told him a neighbor complained and that he should use his better judgment and finish by the designated hour.

Later that night, several officers on duty drove around looking for a citizen who had wandered away. It turned out we searched the wrong area. What if caregivers of people prone to getting lost wore an AirTag necklace or bracelet? That would help find lost loved ones.

A friendly cat’s been snooping around my neighborhood with an AirTag on its collar. The same idea would work with pets.

Close-up view of a cat's back and head, showing its ears and a collar with a round tag.

For this year’s ride, I joined Officer Russ Maynard, a 17-year department veteran on Watch 1. Compared to my previous two ride-alongs, not much happened during our shift, which, I suppose, is a good thing.

No dramatic confrontations.

We stopped to check out a report of someone sleeping in a stairwell. The person had already left. Later, we walked along Boulder Creek to investigate a report of four people causing a disturbance. They, too, had departed.

No arrests.

During my first ride-along two years ago, I observed a felony arrest earlier that day. Before we went in to pick up the suspect, the officer explained the level of force he would be using as a precaution. He cuffed the felon and a second responding officer took him to the county jail without incident. We went back to the PD and logged his belongings.

No high-speed chases.

Last year, during my second ride-along, also on Watch 1, after roll call, we got a call and zoomed out of the parking lot with lights flashing to check on a pickup truck that had knocked over a power line on Highway 93. That contact diverted traffic for several hours.

I appreciate the ride-alongs as a way to get to know patrol officers as people, rather than as the stereotypes we carry around, learned from TV shows and movies. Of course, police officers have their own stereotypes about oversight panels and Internal Affairs offices.

“Serpico,” about an Internal Affairs undercover whistleblower, comes to mind.

Movie poster for 'Serpico' featuring a split image of a police officer in a hat and a man with a beard. The text includes 'Al Pacino en "Serpico"' and credits for director Sidney Lumet.

A little time together in a cruiser helps both sides see beyond preconceived notions. The other is what citizens can do if they believe an officer crossed the line or deserves a commendation.

The city’s website provides a link to guide them through the complaint and commendation process. The flow chart looks more complicated than it is.

Generally, this is what happens after a citizen fills out the complaint form, or if you would like to commend an officer, contact Chief Redfearn. You can also call the Department at the non-emergency number, 303-441-3333

The Independent Police Monitor (IPM), who works out of the city manager’s office, reviews and classifies each submission. Once the police Professional Standards Unit (PSU) and the IPM have processed a case, BPOP may review it and recommend changes to the findings or disposition.

The Chief of Police retains final supervisory authority over the department’s employees.

This process provides accountability while recognizing the chief’s responsibility for managing the department.

The BPOP ride-alongs have been the most enlightening part of my tenure on the panel. Meetings and reports are no substitute for talking with officers, asking questions, and seeing a little of the world from their perspective.

The most useful lesson I’ve learned is the importance of showing up, listening, and understanding someone else’s job.

I enjoyed my time with Officer Maynard. We didn’t solve any crimes or make the evening news. That’s for Sgt. Hank Voight on “Chicago P.D.” and Capt. Olivia Benson on “Law & Order SVU.”

I already know how I’ll mark the arrival of another autumn, though. I’ll look forward to climbing into a police cruiser, buckling up, and seeing where the day takes me.

Maybe I’ll sign up for Watch 3 beginning at 2100 hours on a Saturday night during CU football season and after a big win over Northwestern, avenging the Buffalo’s 2026 loss in Evanston to the Wildcats.