The word “culling” has been on my mind for several years now. Culling typically refers to how wildlife controls its population. In the broader definition, it is to select from a group, to reduce or control the size of something, such as a herd, by removal, as by hunting or slaughter, of especially weak or sick individuals.
![]() |
| Los Angeles, California |
The second definition by Merriam-Webster, to reduce or control the size by removal of especially weak individuals, reminds me of MAGA's agenda and President Trump's Executive Orders on unlawful entry and unlawful residency, more commonly referred to as illegal immigrants. To pay for the culling, Congress is considering cuts to Medicare and Medicaid programs. Is that to cull the poor and sick?
There is a very clear option: tax employers who sponsor H-1B visas. Thousands of companies sponsor foreign employees because they claim that the knowledge and skills required for these roles cannot be found among American citizens and Permanent Residents, green card holders. Tesla, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Apple have all stated that they need these specialty visa employees to remain competitive in the global market. These workers contribute to billions in revenue. Companies operating at that scale should be able to pay $50,000 per year per H-1B–sponsored employee. In addition, existing H-1B visa application fees could be tripled.
Why punish the poor and sick when companies are generating billions by bringing a foreign workforce into the country? Why not have the visa program fund President Trump's border wall, enforcement, and mass deportation? Immigration enforcement costs should be paid by those who benefit from entry visas.
It is a cruel word, culling. However, nature shows that this is how wildlife survives and thrives. Just in case, I would like to remind everyone that we are human, not wildlife. You may find this confusing, since I have not been shy about my views on unlawful entry and residency. I believe this nation must enforce immigration laws. Policies and Executive Orders are not the laws of this nation. I am against both open and closed borders. I believe in controlled borders. I believe in providing emergency sanctuary to those fleeing war, political or religious persecution, and ethnic cleansing. I pointedly left out poverty.
We should have a defined number of new permanent residents admitted each year. Perhaps a maximum cap, paired with a fair and expedient application process. Preference could be given to occupations that directly connect to employment. I am thinking of farm workers and other manual labor such as construction. Instead of forcing them into day labor and instability under shifting policies and Executive Orders, we could enforce existing laws, provide lawful residency, and extend protection under those laws. Stability should not depend on each new administration or political preference.
Is it possible to untangle today’s realities without first securing our borders and implementing mass deportations? If the word culling sounds too cruel, consider thinning. Do we need to thin this nation’s population? Before the fires, Los Angeles county already had more than 70,000 homeless people. Homeless encampments without water or toilets have become as much a part of the county as the Hollywood sign. People, particularly seniors, are pushed into the streets due to a lack of affordable housing. The word “lack” is understated. What happens to the affordable housing system if Los Angeles’s population thins?
What happens to local social service agencies, NGOs, and nonprofits that are already overwhelmed and under-resourced? While unlawful residents cannot directly receive federal aid, they can receive aid through local government agencies, such as those in Los Angeles. Would thinning the population free up resources and increase the impact of those services? What happens when there are fewer people to shelter, educate, serve, provide aid to, and police? There is also the inverse: fewer people means reduced tax contribution. The math is not simple.
Some local government agencies, NGOs, and nonprofits rely on federal funds to sustain their operations. What happens now that President Trump has ordered that federal funds not be provided to local agencies that support illegal immigrants? Historically protected sanctuary spaces—schools, churches, hospitals—are no longer shielded from federal raids. Local officials face federal investigation. Communities face the loss of federal funding.
Do we all drown, or do we save ourselves? And who are ourselves? That word—culling—has lingered on my mind for years. Since President Trump returned to the White House, it has shifted from abstraction to reality. Over the last few days, it has dominated my thoughts, carrying a quiet, persistent unease.
_____
More essays:

Comments
Post a Comment