Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter for 40 years. The author of four books, his new study of the Ken Curtis administration is due in the spring. He welcomes comment at [email protected].

To understand the current Trump administration’s campaign against immigrants, we must go back to a moment that would have changed everything that’s happened since. It was 2013, Barack Obama had been reelected and Congress was poised to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill for the first time since 1986, nearly three decades earlier.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, serving his first term, sponsored the bill, which contained  elements any measure must have to resolve this never-ending dilemma. It is fact, not theory, that the U.S. has encouraged immigration throughout almost all of its history. Most recently, it’s because the native-born population isn’t growing fast enough to maintain the labor force.

Economically, we need immigration and the numbers entering the country wax and wane, depending on administration policies — until 2025, when net legal immigration plunged to less than a quarter of previous rates. Yet we also have millions of non-citizens, many living here for decades.

The 2013 compromise aimed to regulate the flow of immigration to agreed-upon numbers, and offer a “path to citizenship” for those already here. A path doesn’t mean naturalization, just that those living here without citizenship can apply without fearing what happens next.

The bill included substantial funding for speeding up the years-long process of applying for naturalization or asylum, where lengthy delays increase hostility to “illegals,” even those working, paying taxes, raising children and living typical American lives.

Rubio’s bill, which originally had filibuster-proof majorities, was blown up by another first-term Republican, Ted Cruz from Texas, who peeled off enough GOP votes to kill the bill, using explicitly fear-mongering tactics.

It’s been all downhill since. Congress hasn’t even considered the necessary legislation, and what we see today on the streets of Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, California, North Carolina and elsewhere is the result.

In his first term, Donald Trump’s priority was to build a wall on the Mexican border, which was hardly a solution, and Republican Congresses refused to authorize it. But at least it was a rational attempt to control immigration from south to north, where most of it begins.

Instead, in his second term, Trump has deployed what can only be described as an invasion of American cities, mostly in “blue” states, by irregular and poorly trained Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, reinforced by the Border Patrol, many of them raw recruits. The two unnecessary deaths in Minneapolis are only the tip of the iceberg in the misuse of force.

There are credible reports of officers ignoring the Fourth Amendment and breaking into homes, even though the Constitution requires a judicial warrant. And though we’re told the focus is on the “worst of the worst,” a significant number of cases involve those with no criminal records  whose major “offense” was having to wait for an immigration hearing.

Meanwhile, those detained are being whisked off to detention centers a thousand miles away, with administration officials regularly ignoring court orders preventing such transfers. Whatever one’s views, we must have an orderly, lawful process, and this is neither.

Nor does it help that Trump officials label protesters “domestic terrorists,” declare each shooting justified and attempt to prevent local law enforcement from investigating. These come dangerously close to police state tactics, and are undoubtedly “bush league,” as Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce put it.

After the death of Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse shot to death in Minneapolis, Trump finally seems to be backing down, in part due to Republican reaction, including a Minnesota GOP candidate for governor who resigned from the party. But lowering the number of agents and using less aggressive tactics does nothing to settle the underlying issues.

Still, it’s important what our representatives in Congress say and do. Sen. Susan Collins, though a Republican, has at least attempted to get the administration to desist, however unavailing such efforts often are.

It’s hard to find words for Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat whose hometown is Lewiston. He not only supports the contemptibly named “Operation Catch of the Day,” but his sole statement to date has been: “So long as this remains a targeted law enforcement operation focused on individuals who have engaged in criminal activities, then I believe it legitimately serves the public interest.”

From Trump’s first day in office, he’s shown he regards legal norms as inconveniences he can disregard at will. If Rep. Golden can’t see that these operations are far from “targeted,” he’s not looking — though he’s reinforcing the correctness of his decision not to run again.

The worst may be over. That doesn’t mean this coming year will be better than the one just past.  As was said long ago, “There ought to be a law.”