When I first arrived in America in the early 1990s, there were still “national” television channels that both people on the right and the left watched. Genuine debates occurred in that media. Anchors invited proper conservatives and liberals to their shows. They asked probing questions and facilitated vigorous debates that enlightened the average person who was watching. On any given issue, regardless of how controversial it was, viewers could at least hear some perspectives that were different from their own.

For much of the time that I watched the Meet the Press show on NBC in those early years, I had no idea that the moderator, Tim Russert, was a Democrat. It was much later, after I read his memoir, that I learned that he had previously worked as an aide to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Listening to and watching other journalists such as Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel and David Brinkley, I similarly couldn’t tell what their political affiliations were. One of my absolute favorites, Jim Lehrer, consciously decided not to vote for much of his adult life because he wanted to maintain his journalistic independence. Walter Cronkite was no longer on the air when I arrived but from what I’ve heard about him, he was the ultimate national voice.

There was something quite healthy about having those credible journalists elicit the genuine thoughts of public officials on the major issues of the day. The debates were often quite frank but civil. Whether we liked what those political leaders said or not, there was always someone else on the same set who presented something that was at least close to our point of view on the subject at hand. Even though we were not the ones talking, hearing others expressing opinions that were similar to ours made us feel “heard.”

We are in a completely different environment now. Instead of national, today we have clannish television channels. Members of each tribe simply receive echoes of their own views because there is no one presenting anything different. That is why we have become so prone to feelings of agitation as soon as we hear things that challenge our cultural beliefs. We are just not used to that anymore.

The loss of credibility of the media is not the only cause of this national malaise. Mostly, the public officials who the aforementioned stalwarts of journalism interviewed in those days were thoughtful human beings. They could tell truth from fiction. Most of our politicians today, especially in Washington, rarely express their own feelings because they are programmed to make utterances that align with their parties’ talking points. They knowingly say completely nonsensical things due to this “requirement” to tow official party lines. The positions they take on any subjects depend on whether their parties are in or out of power. Whenever their status changes after an election, their parties’ programmers simply modify the software code. Suddenly, they either start supporting policies that they only recently opposed, or opposing ones they previously supported. These dolphin-like flips, which happen equally in our red and blue waters, are quite awful to watch.

During the mass demonstrations in Los Angeles and elsewhere against President Trump’s immigration policies a couple of weeks ago, I thought quite a bit about how America looked and felt like in my early years here. Because this is a nation of immigrants, the immigration issue has always been in the news. But in that old world, the debates about it were relatively calm and rational. Those thoughtful discussions made people feel heard on that sensitive issue. Proponents and opponents of immigration were not as rigid in their views as people are nowadays. Presidents of the day had advisers around them who were willing and able to present contrarian advice when they thought their bosses’ policies would do more harm than good. Those shock absorbers helped smooth the ride for all Americans.

Nowadays, presidential advisers tend to be previous inhabitants of the same echo chambers that have created this national chaos. Instead of serving as coolants, they help speed up the boiling process. Because there is no outlet for the pressurized steam that is generated, the streets have become the only escape valve. We go there to decompress.

I saw two arguments, one legal and the other being moral, in the tense standoff between protesters and the Trump administration. Both documented and undocumented immigrants were likely caught up in the sweeping raids by ICE agents. Given some of the recent behaviors of the administration, those who are here legally and deserve due process, if they happen to be snared in these raids, could be detained and deported before they get the opportunity to make their case. Because of the scale and pace of the operations, the courts, where the legal questions should be settled, can’t realistically keep up. Going into the streets to protest the indiscriminate nature of the raids was therefore justified. It was probably the only practical way to get the president and his top officials to adhere to proper procedures in the timely manner that the situation called for.

However, there was some violence during the demonstrations that was indefensible. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the people being targeted don’t have legal status to remain in the country. It is the president’s prerogative to have them removed if he so desires.

It is one thing having the right to do something. It is quite another determining whether taking that action makes sense. I recently argued that President Trump’s attempt to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom are hardworking, law-abiding people, will be highly detrimental to our economy and is therefore unwise. But he is the president. He is trying to fulfill a promise he made to his voters.

Because the ICE raids will continue in the coming months, and possibly for the remainder of President Trump’s time in office, the confrontations between protesters and ICE agents will also likely persist. For that reason, the distinction between the legal and moral arguments needs to be made clearly. It is only then that the moral case could be argued persuasively.

Ideally, the debate about treating people humanely, whatever their legal status is, should have been happening more calmly in a different venue. But the reality is that the president we have today, and his close advisers, are impervious to such entreaties. The president’s supporters that he is trying to satisfy are also implacable because they are rigidly wedded to only one point of view from having been in their echo chambers for so long. Hence the resort to the imperfect venue—the streets. We have to hope that this doesn’t become the new normal.

It was also quite ironic to hear some people, who either had nothing to say about the Jan. 6 rioters at the U.S. Capitol, or praised them as patriots, calling the Los Angeles protesters all kinds of nasty names. A software code update has obviously occurred to make these people see so clearly now. I pray for seriousness to return to this great country that I now call home.