- Home meant more than a house or a nation; it was the sense that one’s life and the world were in harmony, that one could move through life without fear.
The philosopher and Holocaust survivor Jean Améry once asked, “Wie viel Heimat braucht der Mensch?” — how much home does a person need?
For Améry, the loss of Heimat was not a matter of geography but of being. Home meant more than a house or a nation; it was the sense that one’s life and the world were in harmony, that one could move through life without fear. When that assumption is shattered, a person loses not just a roof but orientation. To be without home, in Améry’s sense, is to live in a world that no longer feels trustworthy.
Nearly sixty years later, that question echoes across a very different landscape. As the United States carries out its current mass deportation policy, Améry’s reflection becomes a mirror for our own moral crisis. What happens to people when home becomes conditional? When the government can revoke belonging with the stroke of a pen?
The official language of the policy speaks of “faithfully executing the immigration laws … against all inadmissible and removable aliens.” The phrasing is bureaucratic, antiseptic, and deliberately impersonal — the language of order and efficiency. But behind it lies the reality of families torn apart, workers disappeared from their jobs, and neighborhoods hollowed by fear.
In the logic of enforcement, home becomes a privilege to be earned rather than a human condition to be protected. Millions who have lived, labored, and raised children in the United States are told they were never really here — that their sense of belonging was an illusion. They are no longer deported from one country to another; they are deported from the world that made sense to them.
Améry understood this rupture intimately. As a Jewish exile stripped of citizenship, he knew what it meant to lose Heimat — to have one’s very presence declared illegitimate. He wrote that the exile is condemned to live “without trust in the world,” because the world itself has betrayed him. In one of his most haunting lines, he insists, “Therefore, once again very clearly: there is no ‘new home.’ Home is the land of one’s childhood and youth. Whoever has lost it remains lost himself, even if he has learned not to stumble about in the foreign country as if he were drunk, but rather to tread the ground with some fearlessness.”
Today’s deportation machinery repeats that betrayal on a vast scale. It transforms the promise of belonging into a policy of exclusion. It tells millions that home is not where you build your life, but where power allows you to stay.
The consequences reach far beyond the people deported. In agricultural valleys, restaurant kitchens, and construction sites, deportation tears through the fabric of community. It destabilizes economies, undermines trust, and leaves U.S.-citizen children in limbo. The American Immigration Council warns that mass removals could slash the nation’s GDP by hundreds of billions of dollars and create cascading shortages in food service, caregiving, and housing.
But those statistics, striking as they are, capture only the material damage. What they cannot measure is the erosion of moral ground — the slow normalization of a world in which human beings live permanently on probation, never certain that their presence will be tolerated tomorrow.
That uncertainty — that existential precarity — is what Améry identified as the deepest wound. “Home,” he wrote, is the comfort of taking one’s world for granted. It is the ability to speak one’s language without shame, to walk through a city without fear, to believe that the walls around you will still be yours in the morning. Deportation dismantles that certainty. It tells a mother that the home she built is not really hers, that her family’s life together was provisional. It tells her children that belonging is a luxury.
If we measure policy not by rhetoric but by its effects, then this is a politics of estrangement — one that produces statelessness within borders. It divides communities into those who belong and those who are merely tolerated. It invites ordinary citizens to see their neighbors not as fellow residents but as conditional presences, always one traffic stop or workplace raid away from disappearance.
For a democracy that prides itself on liberty, that is a devastating contradiction. A free society cannot coexist with a permanent class of people denied the right to feel at home. And yet, the current deportation regime depends precisely on that denial. It thrives on fear — the fear that if belonging can be revoked for some, it can be revoked for anyone.
To ask, then, how much home does a person need is to ask what kind of country we want to be. How much rootedness do people need to live without fear? How much safety is required for dignity? How much trust is necessary for a life to feel human?
The answer is not measurable in square feet or immigration categories. It is moral and relational. People need enough home to be free from the constant dread of displacement. They need enough home to believe their labor and love will not be undone by politics. They need enough home to feel that the world, at least in the space they inhabit, is reliable.
When that disappears, democracy itself begins to erode. Because home — in Améry’s sense — is the foundation on which civic trust is built. If people cannot trust that their world will not turn against them, then law and order become empty phrases.
The architects of deportation see home as an administrative category, but moral clarity demands that we see it differently. Home is not bestowed by the state; it is created through relationship, trust, and shared life. When government policy destroys that, it erases not just homes but humanity.
Jean Améry’s question still lingers: how much home does a person need? Enough to wake each morning without fear. Enough to know that the world will not revoke your belonging. Enough to feel that your existence is secure.
That is the standard by which our politics should be judged — not by the number of removals executed, but by the number of homes preserved.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Part of having a home is the protection of your home.
When the Biden Administration let in unfettered millions of immigrants without much vetting that created a huge problem for the safety of our citizen’s homes. Now the next administration is tasked with dealing with it.
The Charleton Heston image of being hunkered down in your bunker/home with stockpiles of ammunition is not the idea of home described in this essay. You need to go back and read it. For the 95% of people who have abandoned their home countries to make a life where they have a community and a life free of the many fears living in their birth country, they feel just as you do. They want to feel safe in their homes. Why do you invert that to imply that 95% of them are after your little hovel?
“Criminality among the undocumented is a paramount social science concern. Yet despite substantial public and political attention, extant research has established surprisingly few empirical findings on the criminological impact of undocumented immigration. Leveraging a unique combination of data from the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Department of Homeland Security, this study sheds light on this understudied area of inquiry.
Our analysis reveals two broad conclusions about the criminality of undocumented immigrants.
First, undocumented immigrants have substantially lower rates of crime compared to both native US citizens and legal immigrants.
Second, over the 7 y period from 2012 to 2018, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
Keith O
The findings that Don points to are only one of numerous studies showing this fact done over the decades.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find
ICE is being used for our intimidation, not our protection.
They’re probably less-likely to report being victimized by other illegal immigrants in their communities.
But I doubt that one can lump together immigrants from very different countries into one singular group.
And since there had been an unprecedented increase of people pouring in from around the world (such as Somalia), let’s see how that works out going forward.
Those images of vast numbers of people pouring across the border under the Biden administration are simply not acceptable. That alone might have caused Kamala Harris to lose (and rightly so). They could have done something about it, but declined to do so – for months/years.
But as long as there’s incentives for people to migrate illegally to the U.S., it will be an endless battle. There’s also too many American interests which support illegal immigration for their own sake – which might be the biggest reason it occurs.
From article: “What happens to people when home becomes conditional?”
Maybe the more-accurate question is, “what happens when you try to claim a home that isn’t yours to claim”? Simply because you aren’t satisfied with your “actual” home?
And in the case of the “colonists” (or those who came after) at what point do THEIR descendants have “birthright citizenship”? (Might also ask that in regard to Israel.)
There is no doubt that the human race has a long, historical problem with the idea of national identity. In pre-capitalist and pre-feudal days, it was the social norm to offer hospitality to whoever came along. Anthropologists have accumulated a long and irrefutable record of this fact. All major religions include taking in the refugee as a basic aspect of morality. So I can totally agree with the implications of your questions regarding the changing moral standards (and legal framework to support it) we have all adopted that serve the needs of the modern nation-state as it is played out with American indigenous, Palestinians, and many other places in the world. As David pointed out, in the modern nation-state “home becomes a privilege to be earned rather than a human condition to be protected”. I believe I can say with high confidence that you do not feel your privilege to live in the U.S. is in danger; but, if for some reason you began to feel that way, you would object and embrace the concept that all of us have a right to a home where we feel safe to live and speak our heart and mind. Am I misreading you?
Well said
I heard someone last night on a pretty centrist network arguing that Obama removed way more immigrants than Trump. This seemed unlikely to me, and the speech Obama gave that they played would have had *him* removed for not being PC by today’s standard OMG! So I asked The Great Cheese-Dip Eye in the Sky for numbers of removals and expulsions per year, using no biased language in the request, and here’s it spit out:
Barack Obama (2009 – 2016) ≈ 400k / year
Donald Trump (2017 – 2020) ≈ 300k / year
Joe Biden (2021 – 2024) ≈ 550k / year
Donald Trump (2025 to date (est.)) ≈ 500k / year
So according to this, and I’m sure there are a thousand asterisks, Trump removed fewer per year than the Democrats who preceded him. I was especially surprised by the Biden numbers. I honestly didn’t gin this, and I didn’t do it to prove a point as I didn’t know the numbers when I asked. I am asking straight up, not trying to be contrarian, what are the differences and why are we having so much resistance and news coverage, when apparently Democrats did the same thing? I understand one reason is that Biden allowed so many to cross into the US that the high numbers are partially about the high number turned back quickly near the border.
The gross numbers only tell part of the story of course. Not sure what “The Great Cheese-Dip Eye” refers to, but could it return numbers for each of these administrations on the number of people who have been refused temporary protected status, the number of “dreamers” who have been deported, the number of people deported with and without criminal records? It just seems to me, based on what gets reported, that while the quantitative deportations are about equivalent, there are stark qualitative differences.
“The Great Cheese-Dip Eye” is A.I. DG used to have a name for his brand, so I just make stuff up, too.
There may be stark qualitative differences. There could also be stark media reporting differences or political differences. I’m asking what those are, as I can’t say at this point. Not sure it’s even possible as the most recent Trump iteration isn’t exactly transparent on this.
Alan
Yes, it probably has mostly to do with media coverage, but also the manner in which it has been done what the end goal truly is. It also probably has to do with the relative competence of each administration in getting the task done. Obama and Biden were aiming for an orderly manner to manage the issue and relied much more on due process. Trump and Stephen Miller intend it to create social disruption and justify further, broader authoritarian actions.
“Speed Over Fairness: Deportation Under the Obama Administration”
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama
“In fast-track proceedings across the country, the Biden administration has been quietly ordering the deportation of thousands of asylum seekers, most of whom never get their day in court.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4128674-no-deportations-without-due-process-the-dedicated-docket-must-go/
Keith O
Are you trying to claim that the Trump Administration has been more fair? No system is perfect.
To answer the question that I initially thought was posed by the title of this article, I’m going to say a minimum of 2,000 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2-car garage, and a yard (for a family of four plus their dog). Though some might argue that the dog is the fifth member of the family.
Cats count as a half-member of a family due to their size, independence and attitude – though the entire neighborhood is THEIR home.
See Dave Hart’s comment
Not seeing anything regarding square footage, but I do see this:
“I believe I can say with high confidence that you do not feel your privilege to live in the U.S. is in danger; but, if for some reason you began to feel that way, you would object and embrace the concept that all of us have a right to a home where we feel safe to live and speak our heart and mind. Am I misreading you?”
(My response would be that being born in the U.S. to parents who were also citizens creates a “birthRIGHT” (not a “privilege”) to call the U.S. home. In fact, I would say that this qualifies me, for example, as a “native American”.)
Just as those in other countries generally have a “right” to call their country of origin “home”.
I’m not sure why the U.S. has a duty to be the dumping ground of the world. Europe is also experiencing problems at this point as a result of the immigration they allowed.
Fix your own country, so to speak. And in fact, this type of immigration likely makes it more-difficult for those “left behind”.
Though I would say that there’s a significant difference between allowing someone to stay in the country for an extended period, vs. granting citizenship.
I would not support granting citizenship to anyone entering the country illegally.
As I previously noted, I know someone who can’t even arrange for a family member to visit for a short period of time. That person can’t just “walk into” the country, since an ocean separates them. (Though that didn’t stop some recent illegal immigrants.)
“ My response would be that being born in the U.S. to parents who were also citizens creates a “birthRIGHT” (not a “privilege”) to call the U.S. home. In fact, I would say that this qualifies me, for example, as a “native American””
Isn’t that interesting? It’s almost as though you’re missing the whole point of today’s article.
I read it – what do you think I’m missing?
At this point, I do think they should change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. (Not literally, but figuratively.)
Donald Trump said, “you either have a country, or you don’t”. (I do think it’s about that simple.)
Now, when the entire world reaches the point that John Lennon’s “Imagine” is within reach, maybe we’d all have a different outlook. But the world is not that way (not just the U.S.).
In Thailand, they charge foreigners “more” to visit historical sites – and they make that judgement based upon skin color. They also restrict foreign investment/ownership of property (unlike the U.S.). I’m sure there’s all kinds of other restrictions, as well.
Just about every country on the face of the earth restricts immigration in some form.
What if you thought you had a country, but you don’t?
You’re referring to countries that collapse, I assume. And their entire populace (or a significant portion thereof) are in extreme danger.
I don’t believe that’s an accurate depiction of most of the (11 million?) illegal immigrants in this country.
But if you’re asking what I’d do about that situation (aftermath of war), it depends. Certainly, their land still exists (and they usually/probably can eventually return home).
It could be that in situations like that, a war will be needed to make their country safe again. Sometimes, bad people need to be killed by a force stronger than they are.
I saw on the news last night that Trump is planning to essentially declare war WITHIN Nigeria, as he’s doing in South America. (Though up until this point, he’s been pretty restrained about full-engagement wars.)
Ultimately, however, it is up to citizens to “make your own country safe again”, so to speak.
I am not referring to that.
Well, I don’t know what your question is, then.
Start by looking at the history of Jean Amery, that will be a big clue.
So you’re referring to Jewish people who got dislodged from Germany (or were killed). (Just skimmed through it, since I normally don’t do research to answer a question that someone doesn’t want to explain.) In any case, didn’t they get their “own” country after the war? Which subsequently caused another group of people to “question” that – to this day?
And quite a few ended up in the U.S., as well.
In any case, this seems similar to the situation I described and addressed – your own country turns against you (as a group).
Seems like we did take care of the little fellow with the mustache, however.
And a lot of other citizens in Germany suffered, as well.
Maybe you shouldn’t type everything that comes into your head.
You asked a question, didn’t explain what you meant, said that I’d need to do research to figure out what you meant, I answered it based upon what I’m guessing you asked (after briefly following your “instructions”), and then you insulted me.
And you think there’s a problem with me (and not you)? Really?
That’s a question for you, this time. And the only “research” you’ll need to do is to look at the chain of interaction, above. (Not the first time, and probably not the last time however.)
You made an insulting comment – again
“Fix your own country, so to speak. And in fact, this type of immigration likely makes it more-difficult for those “left behind”.”
When US policies that support authoritarian governments and US corporate actions that make it impossible to “fix your own country” then we have a responsibility to take in those refugees who are not able to thrive in their own country.
And then there’s the problem where your own country kicks you out because of who you are (not even what you believe.) That’s the source of most of the refugee flow in the world. Facilitating the deaths or thousands and millions far outweighs any imagined inconvenience you might have towards refugees arriving here.
The real solution is to pull our support from those authoritarian governments, punish US corporations exploiting those economies and send more foreign aid to those nations that have democratic governments. But I don’t see that happening soon as our presidents wants to go back to the period when America started doing all of those bad things in the later nineteenth century. So we’re left with the only other moral alternative–allowing in refugees. We created this problem and now we need to solve.
David, your interchange with Ron O. brings to mind the quote by Kurt Vonnegut’s character in Slaughterhouse Five: “You can’t see the flies in your eyes, because you have flies in your eyes.”