ACE

Category: Immigration

  • Understanding The Standoff at Eagle Pass

    Understanding The Standoff at Eagle Pass

    The Background: Mexico, Biden, and Operation Lone Star

    The United States has had tense relations with Mexico when it comes to border security since Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s election into the Mexican presidency. This has been due to the implementation of the “Security and Foreign Agents” law implemented in Mexico, which significantly strains U.S. operations on the Mexican side of the border for preventing undocumented immigration. Despite the legislation, the Lopez Obrador administration has shown its willingness to discuss border security with Biden administration officials such as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and others.

    The Biden administration has done the following in Immigration and Border Protection policy:

    • Increased the refugee cap from 18,000 to 125,000 individuals
    • Expanded access to family based green cards through the per-country caps
    • Increased the annual total of diversity visas to 80,000

    Despite this, Republicans believe that the measures taken by the Biden administration are not enough to handle the supposed “crisis at the border”. This claim includes the accusation of not enforcing border protection policies in any capacity. Citing these criticisms of the Biden administration, Texas Governor Greg Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in 2021 to address the issue of undocumented migration.

    The initiative has claimed to have arrested 208,000 migrants, However, reliable sources have noted that arrests made beyond the southern border are being counted within figures released by the State of Texas. There are no concrete numbers on how many of these arrests are actually made on the border due to this data error. Despite this, governor Abbott has renewed disaster declarations for 43 counties located within the Texas border. He also began the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops in 2021.

    Rundown of the Standoff

    On the 10th of January, 2024, National Guard troops placed by Governor Abbott blocked federal agents from entering Shelby Park in Eagle Pass. The agents, who were attempting to place surveillance apparatuses, were barred from entering the area while National Guard troops erected more barbed wire fencing on the riverside. On January 12th, 3 people (2 being children) drowned in Shelby park while agents were blocked from entering the area. After a week and a half of petitioning from the federal government, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed federal agents to remove the wire fencing and ordered the State of Texas to allow federal agents into Shelby Park.

    National Guard troops would still be stationed in the area and keeping track of which federal agents enter the park, but they let said agents operate without restriction. On the 16th of February, Governor Abbott doubled down on his efforts for maintaining the National Guard in the area by promising the construction of an 80-acre base camp near Eagle Pass. The facility is set to house 1,800 to 2,300 National Guard troops, including those sent by states such as Georgia. This is despite reports of 1-in-5 troops having issues with payment for their deployment and shortages of equipment and supplies for National Guard troops stationed at the border.

    Who Gets Affected?

    The residents of Eagle Pass have been dealing with an unprecedented amount of military presence in their community. When asked about the situation that has unfolded, residents such as Carlos Herrera state that they want their community to go “back to normal”. The scene described in Eagle pass is compared to a “warzone in a third world country”. Although some residents are grateful for the increased efforts in border security, many believe the militarization of the border is a step too far. Furthermore, residents have also encountered a heightened amount of political protests making trips to Eagle Pass. One group, which has described itself as an “army of God”, is a convoy of trailer truck drivers wanting to ramp up support for the National Guard and their efforts in Shelby Park, as well as for former president Donald Trump in his re-election campaign.

    After the takeover of National Guard troops at Shelby Park, an incident transpired in which 3 undocumented individuals drowned in the Rio Grande while attempting to cross illegally. This happened after federal agents were tipped off about their crossing and attempted to enter the Shelby Park area, which at the time National Guard troops refused to allow access to. According to residents, since the takeover of Shelby Park there have been more political protests and livestreamers in the Eagle Pass area than actual undocumented individuals attempting to cross through Shelby Park.

    Support for the Standoff

    Governor Abbott and many Texas Republicans have cited the “Invasion Clause” found within the U.S. Constitution due to the large influx of undocumented migrants crossing into Texas. Abbott has further claimed that the Biden administration is taking insufficient measures to counteract illegal immigration describing those who cross undocumented as “gang members” and “members of terrorist watchlists”. Attorney General Ken Paxton has gone as far as to say that Biden is “in partnership with the cartels”. 

    Republicans have also cited both the concern of human trafficking on the border and the increase of drug smuggling for narcotics such as fentanyl on the southern border. 13 Republican governors have flown into Eagle Pass with the explicit purpose of showing support to the efforts of Operation Lone Star and the National Guard troops stationed at Shelby Park.

    Critiques of the Standoff

    Legal experts view the “Invasion Clause” within the context of when it was drafted, and after determining the state of the country during the revolution they summarize that a textualist interpretation would not hold up today due to how drastic our political situation is. Further, the act of describing illegal immigration as an “invasion” was analyzed in Padavan v. New York. The Supreme Court of New York determined that even if we were to view the damage done by undocumented migration on the same level as a formal invasion from a foreign country, there is no clear political body or structure that is attempting to overthrow our own which disqualifies their action from an “Invasion Clause” violation.

    Aside from jurisprudence disagreements, the opposition to the standoff have claimed the escalation to be an overstep in jurisdiction. Rather than seeing the claims being made by the State of Texas when it comes to border policy as legitimate, some have elected to view this as one of many attempts by the State of Texas to defy current Supreme Court jurisprudence with the goal of overturning U.S. v. Arizona. Some of the heavier accusations levied against supporters is how their ideologies are “extremist”, with said ideologies being compared to the January 6th insurrectionists.
    Residents of Eagle Pass are uncomfortable with the militarization of their town, with calls to return to normalcy being common. The Eagle Pass real estate agent Carlos Herrera stated that residents “wish everything could go back to normal.” Despite this, Herrera discusses how many such as himself feel as if there is nothing they could do to stop or reverse the actions taken by National Guard troops stationed at Eagle Pass.

  • Legal Protections for Undocumented North Korean Immigrants in Los Angeles under the California Values Act [SB 54]

    Legal Protections for Undocumented North Korean Immigrants in Los Angeles under the California Values Act [SB 54]

    Description of Issue 

    North Korea presents a severe humanitarian crisis, characterized by stringent controls over its citizens’ basic freedoms including movement, speech, health, and access to food. Domestic laws strictly forbid North Koreans from leaving their city or country without government authorization. Those found violating these laws or dissenting against the regime are often imprisoned in detention camps, where they face physical and verbal abuse. Despite these risks, thousands of North Koreans still choose to defect each year, seeking freedom from the oppressive government.

    While most North Korean defectors seek refuge in South Korea due to shared ethnicity and language, others head to the United States, drawn by different economic and educational opportunities. However, the U.S. refugee adjudication process is notoriously lengthy and complex, often taking nearly two years. As a result, some North Korean defectors end up living in hiding in the U.S. to avoid the protracted official immigration procedures.

    Los Angeles has the largest Korean American population in the U.S., with over 100,000 residents. An estimated 200 former North Koreans settle among them in L.A., though the exact numbers are unknown. They may have personal connections or have heard by word of mouth about L.A.’s prosperous Koreatown. 

    Description of Legislation

    California solidified its status as a sanctuary state by passing Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), titled the California Values Act, in October 2017. A sanctuary state actively offers political support to undocumented immigrants through an official government capacity. 

    SB 54 limits state and federal law enforcement authorities’ cooperation in reporting immigration status. Specifically, it prohibits state or local law enforcement from using resources or personnel “to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” This includes inquiring into an individual’s immigration status or holding them in custody solely due to federal requests. However, state and local law enforcement agencies may report immigrants who have been convicted of serious or violent felonies in the past 15 years.

    Arguments in favor

    Protects immigrant communities

    SB 54 recognizes immigrants as valuable and essential members of the California community by prohibiting local and state agencies from transferring undocumented people into federal custody. This helps build trust between law enforcement and California residents, regardless of their legal status. The protections may encourage undocumented individuals to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. 

    Focus on public safety

    Proponents of SB 54 also contend that state funding cannot be commandeered to implement federal deportation programs. They advocate for dedicating valuable resources to policing local crimes and protecting the well-being of all residents. 

    In addition, SB 54 still allows local agencies to report to ICE any immigrant with a previous conviction from a list of approximately 800 crimes. The policy does not protect criminals, who are still charged, detained, convicted, and sentenced as appropriate.

    Supports due process rights

    Proponents also claim that SB 54 aligns with the Due Process Clause in the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which mandates the fair treatment of all individuals under the law. By restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities and prohibiting prolonged detention based on only immigration status, the Bill ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without due process.

    Moreover, such sanctuary policies help reduce the chances of being sued for potential constitutional violations. Several local jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, have been charged for unlawfully detaining immigrants in violation of due process procedures to meet Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Courts have awarded thousands of dollars to victims in damages, which these jurisdictions must pay, often without a promise of reimbursement from the federal government.

    Arguments against

    Conflict with federal law

    Opponents assert that SB 54 conflicts with federal immigration law and undermines the Executive Branch’s authority. While states are not obligated to participate in national immigration enforcement activities, federal law (8 USC § 1373) prohibits them from actively obstructing national law enforcement. Sanctuary policies, including SB 54, may violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the Tenth Amendment.

    Notably, in March 2018, the Trump Administration sued California by claiming that SB 54 interferes with federal immigration enforcement. However, the federal jury upheld the state’s sanctuary policy, claiming California has the right “to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

    Potential public safety concerns

    Critics also argue that limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities under SB 54 poses public safety risks by making it easier for undocumented immigrants with criminal histories to stay in the U.S. In 2023, Border Patrol agents have allegedly encountered thousands of undocumented people with prior criminal convictions, including assault, rape, and murder. The true extent of crimes committed by undocumented individuals is unknown because there have been over 1.5 million unaccounted-for “getaways” since President Biden’s term began. They contend that states’ non-compliance with ICE policies disrupts efforts to identify and detain individuals who pose a threat to public safety.

    Potential national security concernsFurthermore, critics express concern that SB 54 may hinder cooperation and information sharing between state and federal law enforcement agencies, which may impede efforts to combat transnational crime and terrorism. They argue that collaboration between local, state, and federal authorities is imperative for effective law enforcement and national security.

  • Understanding Texas Senate Bill 4

    Understanding Texas Senate Bill 4

    The Background: Preemption, Biden’s Border Policies and Operation Lone Star

    In 2012, the United States Supreme Court deliberated on four provisions from Arizona’s “Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” in the case of U.S. v. Arizona, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). In a 6-2 decision, the court found three provisions to be unconstitutional due to violating the Supremacy Clause: 

    • Section 3, which created misdemeanor charges for failing to be registered as an alien; 
    • Section 5(C), which made it a misdemeanor for undocumented noncitizens to seek work in Arizona; and
    • Section 6, which allowed law enforcement to arrest suspected undocumented noncitizens with probable cause. 

    The court also unanimously agreed that Section 2(B) was constitutional and did not preempt the federal government’s authority. Supporters of the court’s ruling proclaimed this to be an “important step” in defining the federal government’s control on immigration policy, even with the remaining concerns they had on racial profiling and how the rest of the bill could facilitate the act. Detractors of the decision, including the dissenting opinions, feel that the “heart of the bill” has still been maintained overall. Furthermore, opponents of the decision advocated for both the passing of similar laws that fit within the ruling and called on legislators to pass amendments that would make it easier for States to make laws like the act in the future.

    With the decrease of COVID-19 rates during the Biden administration, both the cap on greencards obtained through families and the refugee admittance cap would be increased. Despite increased spending on border security (with a $6.5 billion increase in the Department of Homeland Security’s budget) and maintaining many Trump administration policies concerning the border, conservatives feel that the increase in both greencard and refugee caps are unsustainable. Further, conservatives express that president Biden might not truly care about the perceived border crisis, citing the 500,000 encounters on the southern border found at the beginning of the 2023 fiscal year. The sentiment is felt strongly throughout House Republicans, who began an impeachment inquiry on president Biden in relation to border policy.

    Citing the Biden administration’s “refusal to secure the southern border” perceived by Texas governor Greg Abbott, the State of Texas launched Operation Lone Star. The initiative, which as of March 2022 had arrested 208,000 migrants, has been counting arrests made beyond the southern border in Texas which inflates the numbers used to show Operation Lone Star’s success. Despite these findings, governor Abbott has renewed disaster declarations for 43 counties located within the area.

    What does Texas’ Senate Bill 4 do?

    1. The bill creates criminal penalties for illegal entry into the United States.
    2. Senate Bill 4 lets law enforcement ask individuals for papers or other documents that show legal residence.
    3. It also allows law enforcement to arrest undocumented individuals for not having papers proving their residence.
    4. Under Senate Bill 4, Texas judges can both hand out criminal sentences for the crime of illegal entry and hand out deportation orders for individuals who are found to be undocumented individuals.

    Legal Challenges to Senate Bill 4

    In response to the signing of Senate Bill 4 by Texas governor Greg Abbott, several interest groups including the ACLU intended to challenge the bill legally by filing a lawsuit alongside the County of El Paso due to the potential consequences it could have on minority groups in Texas, with the ACLU in particular calling the bill “unconstitutional”. Later on, the Department of Justice would launch a lawsuit against the State of Texas claiming that the bill preempts federal jurisdiction on immigration policy. These two lawsuits would be combined.

    After the February 15th hearing held in U.S. District Judge David Ezra’s court, Judge Ezra halted Senate Bill 4 from taking into effect on the 29th of February, 2024. Judge Ezra stated that allowing Senate Bill 4 to be enacted on its original March 3rd date would cause “irreparable harm” to current federal immigration laws. On the 2nd of March, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans reversed this decision on appeal by the State of Texas with the intent of placing the lawsuit against the bill to be put on “the next available oral argument calendar”. After this, the Supreme Court of the United States then blocked the 5th Circuit Court’s decision, giving a temporary stay until the 13th of March to decide whether Texas can enact the law while being challenged legally.

    Arguments in favor of Senate Bill 4

    The position taken by the State of Texas and many of its representatives is that the current administration has not done enough in terms of securing the southern border, and the amount of undocumented individuals crossing through would be considered an “invasion” on Texas soil. With this, supporters such as governor Abbott state that Texas has the right to defend itself constitutionally. Supporters have also noted how the criminal penalties are identical to current federal regulation, pushing the idea presented by the Scalia and Thomas dissents in U.S. v. Arizona that would disqualify such practice as preemption.

    To further their point, conservatives point out how the State of Texas has sent buses containing 65,000 undocumented individuals out of the state into democratic states to show the amount of immigrants coming into the southern border. This, alongside the measure of placing barbed wire on the border, have strengthened conservative’s convictions on the bill being legally and morally just. 

    Arguments against Senate Bill 4

    The largest source of criticism for Senate Bill 4 mainly stems from the U.S. v. Arizona ruling in 2012, which is used by the parties involved in the current lawsuit against Texas to determine the bill, is preempting the federal government’s rule of immigration policy. One claim about the bill states that it is rooted within nativism and is directly formed to challenge the current restrictions implemented by the Supreme Court ruling. By allowing this bill to remain, opponents of the bill fear it will incentivize other states to pass similar legislation that could preempt immigration policy.

    Further concern is drawn on how the bill can increase the likelihood of racial profiling within law enforcement practices and violations of the Due Process clause when dealing with undocumented individuals. With the rise of this profiling could also come increased tensions between immigrant communities and law enforcement within the state of Texas, according to the National Immigration Forum. 
    Finally, a particular concern raised by Chloe East’s research claims that bills such as Senate Bill 4 decreases employment opportunities for legal residents. The bill also contains the possibility of worsening health and economic conditions for undocumented families, alongside reducing their access to healthcare and increasing the separation of families according to her research.

  • US Response to the Recent Rise in Climate Refugees

    US Response to the Recent Rise in Climate Refugees

    Introduction

    As global temperatures rise, climate change is causing millions of people to be displaced from their homes each year. This phenomenon, known as “climate refugees,” is driven by flooding, fires, natural disasters, and resource scarcity. The increasing number of climate refugees is leading to intensified migration patterns across international borders, posing economic, social, and political challenges globally. It is estimated that by 2050, about 1.2 billion people are at risk of displacement due to climate disasters. Addressing this worldwide threat of displacement requires understanding the problem and implementing proposed solutions.

    Defining the Problem

    In the United States, climate refugees from Central and Latin America, as well as internally displaced climate refugees, are significantly impacting migration patterns. Rising sea levels and increased natural disasters have already forced thousands of Americans to relocate within the country. Experts project that about 162 million Americans, nearly half the population, may experience a decline in their environmental quality, leading to increased migration flows. Additionally, citizens of Latin and Central American countries affected by extreme weather are seeking asylum at the U.S. border. In the most extreme climate scenarios, experts estimate that over 30 million migrants could head towards the U.S. border in the next 30 years.

    Climate migration flows are expected to impact both the United States and Europe, with Europe likely to receive higher numbers of climate refugees. The countries most often left by climate migrants are primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa region. The influx of migrants poses economic and geopolitical challenges for host regions. European countries like Greece and Italy have already faced strains on economic resources, affecting their social and political spheres. These estimates underscore the severity of the climate refugee issue on an international scale.

    While global migrant flows are increasing, the critical issue lies in how international governments respond to these numbers. Climate refugees, facing homelessness and food insecurity, are on the frontlines of the climate emergency, often lacking resources to adapt to harsh environments. The influx of migrants strains host countries economically and politically, as they struggle to provide essential resources like housing, food, water, and safety. Disagreements over refugee rights can lead to political turmoil, posing a threat to the overall stability of host countries.

    The main challenge governments face when dealing with climate refugees is legal. According to international law, a refugee is someone who faces persecution based on specific grounds, but climate refugees were not considered during the writing of refugee protections. As a result, they lack internationally recognized legal status as refugees and do not have a real right to asylum. This legal gap hinders governments from adequately addressing the growing number of climate refugees.

    The International Response

    The EU recognizes climate migration as a strategic issue and calls for funding and responses from member countries. The European Parliament has acknowledged the connection between climate change and migration, defining the climate crisis as one of the most important issues in the EU. A team of researchers has been designated to investigate the issue and propose an approach to address climate-induced displacement and migration. However, there is currently no EU legislation specifically providing asylum for climate refugees.

    In 2021, President Biden published a progressive report officially correlating climate change and migration, marking a significant shift in U.S. government policy. This report signaled the government’s willingness to lead in climate migration legislation internationally. Additionally, the Biden Administration expanded Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2021, a status that offers temporary protection from deportation for refugees from countries facing war, natural disasters, or other crises. While TPS currently benefits refugees from certain countries like El Salvador and Haiti, experts argue that expanding TPS to include more climate refugees would be a positive step in addressing climate migration flows. Overall, these initiatives demonstrate the U.S. government’s commitment to finding solutions for climate refugees.

    The US government has taken proactive steps to address internal migrant flows through national programs and funding. The 2021 White House report outlines these efforts, which include building local and national capacity to use climate information in decision-making, supporting adaptation to climate change impacts, and assisting migrants, displaced individuals, and host communities. Additionally, the US provides funding to organizations like the UNHCR, Red Cross, displacement monitoring centers, and others working with climate refugees. These initiatives align with the Biden administration’s mission to help climate refugees seek asylum and safety, while also promoting education and infrastructure to support American communities in a changing climate.

    Pros and Cons of US Response

    The US government’s policies reflect a committed response to the prevalence of climate change and its impact on migration flows. The expansion of TPS by the Biden administration signals a dedicated interest in addressing the issue and exploring potential solutions. However, it is crucial for governments worldwide to recognize the legal status of climate refugees. The United States has the opportunity to collaborate with global powers to find comprehensive solutions to climate migration. While TPS is a positive step, it remains a temporary measure with eligibility restrictions. Overall, while the US response is proactive, there is a need for more robust legislation to address the growing challenge of climate-induced migrant flows effectively.

  • Successes and Failures of US Response to Ukrainian Refugees

    Successes and Failures of US Response to Ukrainian Refugees

    Background

    In February of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, a continuation of Russian expansion that began with their annexation of Crimea in 2014. The invasion was not localized—like the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula—and Ukrainians were forced to leave the country on a large scale (8.1 million fled as of March 2023) in order to escape the Russian bombardment of Ukrainian cities. In response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, multiple countries have admitted Ukrainian refugees, including the US. In addition, the UN estimates that 17.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance as a direct result from the war.

    The Biden Administration announced its plan to help Ukrainian refugees on April 21, 2022, two months after war broke out. The plan, “Unite for Ukraine,” involves US citizens who volunteer to sponsor and host Ukrainian refugees. Unite for Ukraine grants Ukrainian refugees an expedited immigration process and makes government assistance available to them while on parole. This program is set to last for two years. Through Unite for Ukraine, the Biden administration promised to admit 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, a mark reached in five months after the program’s launch.

    The US response to Ukrainian refugees was unprecedented in recent history. The United States played a major role in establishing the international refugee system after World War II and admitted vast numbers of refugees, especially from Vietnam, Soviet states, and Kosovo. However, since the early 2000s the US had pursued a more restrictive refugee policy. The current response to the refugee crisis is significant, both because the US mobilized to quickly accept a large number of refugees, and because this response includes generous humanitarian aid to those displaced. The White House announced, “we are prepared to provide more than $1 billion in new funding towards humanitarian assistance for those affected by Russia’s war in Ukraine and its severe impacts around the world, including a marked rise in food insecurity, over the coming months. This funding will provide food, shelter, clean water, medical supplies and other forms of assistance.”

    Policy as a Success

    Many view the program as a success of public-private partnerships, because it reached the stated goal of resettling 100,000 refugees so quickly. The supply of US citizens volunteering to host Ukrainian refugees outstripped demand, demonstrating the support and enthusiasm of US citizens. Additionally, the Cato Institute argues that the policy empowered ordinary US citizens  because it largely removed the government from the refugee policy. The Cato Institute further argues that this policy should be a model for US refugee resettlement. Unite for Ukraine has limited bureaucracy and the form to apply to host a Ukrainian refugee is on one website, making the process easy for those willing to host.

    In the usual regular refugee resettlement system, displaced people register with the United Nations and are screened and vetted for security risks. The President decides on an annual refugee cap, and the UNHCR works with nine national nonprofit organizations in the US to resettle the agreed-upon number of refugees across the country based on factors such as medical needs, local support (i.e. family or community in the area), and linguistic resources. Refugees are put on a path to qualify for permanent residence in the US. The entire process, from registering with the UN to reaching the US, takes on average two years. In contrast, Unite for Ukraine moved more quickly.

    Policy as Weakness

    Some criticize the Biden Administration’s response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis as too slow. The plan was announced two months after war broke out. Some Ukrainians attempted to reach the US before the plan was announced via the border with Mexico. They now must go through the regular US immigration process rather than Unite for Ukraine because there is no provision in the policy to allow for Ukrainian resettlement from ports of entry. Some argue the response to Ukrainian refugees is hypocritical, when displaced people from Central and Latin America are not given the same treatment. At Unite for Ukraine was announced, the US-Mexico border was closed to asylum seekers due to Title 42. Similarly, the US has not mobilized to take in displaced people from other countries, like Venezuela, Sudan, and Afghanistan. One anonymous Democratic aide stated, “You see the president really highlighting how many refugees Poland has taken, and then on the same day, there’s a rollout to very actively reduce the number of people who can even access our asylum system.”

    In addition, the two year duration of the program has been met with some critique. The future of Ukrainian refugees resettled to the US through Unite for Ukraine is unknown. As a result, some companies are hesitant to hire refugees, which makes it difficult to find employment. In addition, Ukrainians qualify for one year of government assistance, which some also believe is too short when accounting for the numerous challenges refugees face when finding their feet in a foreign country.

    The Future

    As the war in Ukraine continues, the Biden Administration will need to make hard decisions about the future of the Ukrainian refugee program. Current provisions have a two year expiration, and the debate continues over whether the US should take in more Ukrainian refugees or focus on displaced people from other conflicts.

  • U and T Nonimmigrant Status

    U and T Nonimmigrant Status

    What is U and T Visa Status and who currently qualifies?

    U and T visa status are programs with the intention of aiding immigrants that are victims of certain criminal activity. U nonimmigrant status is designed to aid victims of crimes that involve mental or physical abuse who assist law enforcement and other government officials in the investigation and/or prosecution of the crime. T visas are designed for victims of human trafficking who fulfill a reasonable request for aid in detecting, investigating, and/or prosecuting human trafficking. 

    How does one apply for a U or T visa?

    1. Turn in a completed Form I-918 to the USCIS
      1. This is the main application document,
    2. Turn in a completed Form I-918 Supplement B
      1. This form is confirmation that the applicant was cooperative with law enforcement, prosecutors, and other government officials in investigating and prosecuting the crime of which they were a victim. 
      2. This cooperation element is key to the public policy goals of the U and T nonimmigrant status programs, as it encourages cooperation with authorities, even if the victim is undocumented and may be wary of authority figures.
    3. If petitioning for other family members, turn in a completed Form I-918 Supplement A.
      1. This allows other family members to receive U visa status based on their relationship to the victim of the crime.

    What are the benefits of U or T visa status?

    The immediate benefit of U or T visa status is that an individual receives lawful status, allowing them to remain in the United States for four years without entering removal proceedings. They are also allowed to petition for close family members, usually a spouse, unmarried minor children, and, if the victim is a child, parents and unmarried minor siblings. If granted, the family members all receive U nonimmigrant status. Another benefit is that employment authorization comes with U nonimmigrant status, allowing one to work legally in the United States while they are allowed to live here.

    The biggest benefit of U and T nonimmigrant statuses is that they are a pathway to permanent residency, often known as a “green card.” While one does not immediately qualify after being granted a U or T visa, one is eligible after living continuously within the United States for four years after obtaining U or T nonimmigrant status. The process is lengthy, but having a green card is the last step before U.S. citizenship. 

    What are the limitations of U and T visa status?

    One of the main limitations of the current U and T nonimmigrant status programs is that a limited number of principal U visas—10,000—are issued annually. There are significantly more U visa applicants than visas issued annually, with over 35,000 filed in 2017 and again in 2018. Given this difference in applications and visas issued, there is a large queue of pending applications—142,000 as of 2019.

  • The Usage of Detention Centers in the US

    The Usage of Detention Centers in the US

    The United States is home to the largest immigration detention system in the world. These detention centers are used to lawfully detain 7% of the noncitizen US population. According to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US detention facilities are intended to hold individuals who await an immigration decision or departure to their home country. The decision to detain a noncitizen is based on a person’s immigration history, risk, ties to the community, and criminal record. Detention centers are used for an extensive breadth of immigrants, including asylum seekers and legal migrants. In the fiscal year of 2021, nearly 250,000 people were detained by ICE. About 43% of the detainee population are Mexican, and 46% of this population claim origin in the Northern Triangle region of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. The use of detention centers speaks to the dual challenges of addressing the needs of asylum seekers while countering illegal activity at US borders.

    The History of Immigrant Detention and Enforcement

    The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act began modern-day immigration detention by setting minimum daily detention quotas and broadening the baseline for criminal offenses in an immigration context. In 1979, the average population of detainees was 2,371, and in 2019, this number had grown  to 49,403 individuals. To maintain this vast system, private detention centers contracted by ICE, such as the GEO Group and Core Civic, along with ICE-operated centers averaged spending of $3.1 billion in the 2018 fiscal year. 

    Current Administration’s Approach

    In January 2021, President Biden’s administration proposed reversing the stringent policies of the Trump administration. The US Citizenship Act of 2021 aims to promote citizenship, prioritize border control, and address the root causes of migration. The Citizenship Act: 

    • Removes the one-year deadline for filing asylum applications and provides funding to reduce application backlogs, addressing the detention length of asylum seekers.
    • Supplements border resources with technology to facilitate screening, improving the ability to process asylum seekers.
    • Orders the Secretary of the Department of Homeland to implement alternative programs to detention. 

    Arguments in Favor of Immigrant Detention 

    1. National Safety: Proponents of immigrant detention centers cite border security as an objective for the type of immigration control in order to ensure community security concerns and individuals labeled as flight risks are confined to these centers.
    2. Enforced Compliance with Immigration Protocols: The Department of Homeland Security oversees the organizational structure and detention standards of US centers in which noncitizens are placed into detention centers to undergo asylum processes. Detention centers are used to hold unaccompanied children who are evading violence, poverty, and other dangerous conditions. DHS is responsible for the standards of care for migrant children which include medical services and access to food and water. 

    Arguments Against Immigration Detention

    1. Unsafe Detention Conditions: In a 2019 Inspector General report, confinement conditions, such as inappropriate treatment, lack of professionalism, inadequate medical care, and hygiene supplies were detailed, resulting in mental and physical trauma amongst some migrants. In a 2021 Pew Research survey, 91% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans believed that supplying safe and hygienic conditions at the southern border is of some importance. Today, amidst the pandemic, detention centers lack masks, soap, appropriate space for social distancing, and other necessities. In June 2021, more than 20,000 individuals contracted COVID-19 while in detention centers.
    2. Expense: ICE-operated detention centers cost a daily average of $144 per immigrant during FY 2021, representing $2.8 billion out of ICE’s gross budget of $8.4 billion. Due to the costly nature of detention, immigration courts prioritize the cases of detained individuals, leaving more than 3 million asylum seekers and individuals with cases of other relief forms without support. The large contribution to detention centers diminishes the investment in other immigration functions, such as providing social services.
    3. Lack of Legal Resources: During the detention period, noncitizens are not guaranteed legal resources, such as lawyers and translators. Asylum seekers without legal representation may clog the system by filing multiple claims in efforts to identify a claim that will be granted, whereas those with counsel file applicable claims due to legal advice. Additionally, language barriers pose an obstacle within the immigration system.

    Alternatives to Detention Centers

    Alternatives to detentions (ATDs) are informal and formal policies, practices, and legislation that deter detentions due to immigration-related reasons. In 2022, the budget for ATDs is $443 million which resulted in the enrollment of 182,607 people in such programs as of mid-March. Today, ICE-operated ATDs include the Intensive Appearance Supervision Program and Extended Case Management Services which utilize monitoring practices, such as in-person check-ins, electronic monitoring (GPS tracking through ankle monitors or cellphones), and case managers. Due to the elimination of needs, including beds, food, medical care, recreational and religious activities, and other resources required within detention centers, daily costs per person reach as low as $0.70 compared to $144, the daily average in detention centers. 

    Similarly, community-based ATDs are used within the US immigration system to provide individuals with the ability to garner close ties to a community and its resources while undergoing the asylum process. In 2016, ICE initiated the Family Case Management Program for families that are not well-suited for detention centers, such as families with children, pregnancies, and histories of domestic abuse. Given a case manager, families were able to receive medical care, English training, and legal assistance. Despite its early cessation in 2017, compliance rates from FCMP were 99% and the average daily cost per family was $38.47.

  • The Expedited Removal Process

    The Expedited Removal Process

    Expedited Removals

    Expedited Removals are a deportation procedure established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responbility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). An expedited removal is a procedure that permits U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a major component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to promptly deport non-citizens who are undocumented and/or have commit fraud. Expedited removals were established by IIRIRA as an attempt to streamline the removal process for immigrants who entered the United States illegally. Since 1996, the expedited removal process has evolved to apply to a broader range of non-citizens and has been increasingly applied over the years.

    Differences Between Expedited Removals and Regular Removals

    Regular removal hearings, as established by IIRIRA, are held in front of a judge and can take 2 to 3 years to reach a final decision. Wait times for hearings are growing longer—the average case in 2022 takes five years to resolve due to backlog. This is because during a regular removal, an immigrant has the time to make a complete case against their deportation. The more testimonies and evidence presented, the longer a case will take a judge to deliberate. When the final verdict is decided, regular removals can be challenged and canceled in the federal courts of appeals. 

    By contrast, expedited removals quicken the deportation process by leaving the hearing process to the immigration officer who arrested the immigrant. Immigrants do not appear in front of a judge and there is no formal court hearing. This means that the individual has to prove they are wrongly being convicted to the officer who detained them. Although the immigrant can consult an attorney, this is rare in most cases due to expedited pace of the hearing, which can take as little as 2 weeks.

    Outcomes of Expedited Removals

    When an immigrant is deported upon arrival in the U.S. through the expedited removal process, they typically receive a five-year ban from reentry into the country. This ban is extended to ten years for immigrants who left the United States while having an outstanding order of removal. A non-citizen can get banned forever from returning to the United States if they are removed quickly on the basis of fraudulent entry or fraud.

    To cancel a removal, the immigrant would issue an appeal to the federal court of appeals to dispute their removal. However, immigrants cannot appeal an expedited removal. The power of cancellation is limited to the Homeland Security officer supervising the port of entry at which the immigrant was originally apprehended.

    Expedited Removal Through the Years

    The expedited removal process was originally limited to non-citizens intending to illegally arrive in the U.S. who were removed at ports of entry. By 2002, the policy broadened to qualify more migrants for expedited removals. The Bush Administration extended expedited removals to include immigrants who had illegally traveled by water to get to the United States. Alongside the expansion, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) introduced the concept of “credible fear” to ensure that immigrants seeking asylum were not wrongly deported through expedited deportations. If an asylum seeker proves during a credible fear interview that there is a credible danger of returning to their home country, then they will not get deported. 

    In 2004, the Bush Administration expanded the policy to include illegal immigrants who traveled by sea and were encountered within 100 miles of the United States borders and were encountered within 14 days of their arrival. In general, the years following the September 11th attacks saw trends of tightened immigration policy—expedited removals being one of the policies that were expanded to apply to more immigrants. The cultural context of the United States at any given time influences restrictions of the expedited removal policy.

    In addition to cultural context, a given president’s political agenda also influences the conditions of the expedited removal process. For example, President Trump’s agenda included strengthening and enforcing stronger illegal immigration laws. In 2019, under the Trump Administration the DHS expanded expedited removals to include immigrants who did not arrive by sea and are encountered within 100 miles of the United States border within 14 days of their arrival. By 2022, the Biden Administration withdrew Trump’s 2019 expansion of expedited removals.

    Arguments in Favor of Expedited Removals

    Proponents of expedited removals argue that the process accelerates the deportation process. The DHS estimated that the regular removal proceeding for noncitizens remains pending for more than two years. This has led to a backlog of nearly 5.2 million unresolved immigration cases that still require hearings. Backlog prevents immigrants from getting their cases resolved and requires the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hire more staffers—another process that includes lengthy training and more funding. Unlike regular hearings, the expedited removal process takes only two to three weeks. Every year following 1997, the amount of removals has increased; from 1996 to 1997 alone the amount of removals increased from 69,680 to 114,432. This data suggests that since the implementation of expedited removals, deportation proceedings have become more effective and quick. 

    Recently, DHS and advocates of expedited removals have cited the Coronavirus crisis in the states as a justification for expedited removals. The DHS has cited the process as a “safe and orderly” way to deal with immigration processing whilst also keeping Americans’ safety a priority during spikes of COVID-19. Governor of Texas Greg Abbott has expressed support of expedited removals, stating that “the dramatic rise in unlawful border crossings has also led to a dramatic rise in COVID-19 cases among unlawful migrants,” directly impacting the health and safety of Texans.

    Arguments Against Expedited Removals

    Those against the expedited removal process believe that migrants should have a right to due process and that the expedited removal process undermines these rights. Due process rights include a right to a hearing and ample opportunity to be heard, or the opportunity to defend yourself fairly and reasonably when convicted. The Supreme Court has held that those who have physically entered the United States, even illegally, should have their due process rights recognized. Yet, many argue that under the expedited removal process immigrants have their due process rights deprived because they are not granted a traditional hearing before a judge. Instead, they are subject to detention and deportation in an expedited hearing before an immigration officer.

    In addition to the lack of opportunity to defend themselves, many of those against expedited removals have cited family detention centers, where families facing expedited removals are held, as places that incite physical and emotional trauma. A 2016 study found that 83% of adults and 85.7% of teenagers in a given detention center showed symptoms of depression and anxiety—many people view detention centers as a result of the expedited removal processes as a violation of human rights.

  • Introduction to Cuban Migration

    Introduction to Cuban Migration

    US Policy Throughout History

    The United States’ policy overseeing Cuban migration has evolved over the past 70 years. 

    • Between the early 1930s and 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million Cuban migrants in the US. 
    • Following strained US-Cuban relations, the US enacted the Cuban Adjustment Act in 1966, which allowed Cubans who had resided in the US for at least a year to apply to become lawful and permanent residents. It was a fast track to permanent residency for many Cuban immigrants. The Cuban Adjustment Act came into effect after the 1959 Cuban Revolution which resulted in 1.4 million Cubans fleeing to the United States. 
    • In 1994 the US agreed to admit 20,000 Cubans annually. Prior to receiving permanent status in the US, Cuban immigrants were considered refugees and were counted as such within the overarching immigration system. However, this number did not include the family members of the admittees. Family members (spouses of a Cuban native or unmarried child under the age of 21) were allowed to apply for a green card under the CAA. Therefore, a total of 20,000 households are admitted into the US each year. 
    • In 2007, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP) began allowing family members of US citizens to travel to the US without having to wait for immigration visas. Once these migrants were physically present in the US, they were able to apply for work permits. This step allowed for the reunification of families and allowed for a more streamlined process of migration.

    Why Cubans are Migrating

    Historically, mass migration from Cuba to the United States has been in response to economic and political struggles that are present within Cuba. There has been a steady flow of migration since the 1959 Cuban Revolution. The largest migration waves coincide with economic crises, and many fled in the 1960’s when the Cuban government closed nearly 55,000 small businesses as part of the socialist economic transformation. Cuba’s economy is currently struggling due to combined issues from the Covid-19 pandemic, the US trade embargo, and domestic issues such as inflation, corruption, and shortfalls in domestic food production. In 2014, the Obama Administration lifted sanctions on Cuba allowing for more economic freedom.

    Trump and Biden Administrations: What has Changed?

    The Trump Administration reversed many of Obama’s efforts to improve bilateral relations with Cuba, and enacted new sanctions in 2017 which prohibited commerce with businesses controlled by or operating on behalf of the Cuban military, intelligence agencies, and security services, as well as limited travel and trade between the two countries. These policies took aim at revenue from travel, tourism, and remittances. In 2017 the US suspended visa processing and Cuba halted consular services in response.

    The Biden Administration sought to improve relations with Cuba. In 2022, the two countries held migration talks for the first time in four years, and visa processing has resumed as of May of 2022. The Biden Administration is seeking to stop the surge of Cuban migrants at the US-Mexico. In May of 2022, the Biden Administration announced the resumption of the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP). This will allow Cuban residents in the US to apply for parole for their family members. 47% of Americans support restaffing the US embassy and issuing visas while 22-24% of Americans oppose these steps; 24-31% of Americans have no opinions on these issues. 

    The State of Migration Today

    Migration from Cuba to the US consists mostly of people between the ages of 20 and 40 and a majority are women. Many Cubans attempt to enter the US through the US-Mexico border, and Cubans are among the top nationalities waiting at the US-Mexico border for entry into the US. Cubans travel from Cuba to Nicaragua and from there, make their journey to the US-Mexico border in hopes to cross into the US. Nicaragua is a popular starting point for migrants as Nicargua has eliminated visa requirements for Cubans. The US government is already struggling to process many migrants from Latin America. Many Cubans apply for political asylum, and there is currently a 54 month backlog for asylum hearings. The Biden Administration hopes to eventually lift remittance restrictions which would benefit Cuba’s economy and the families of migrants.

  • Family Reunification for Central American Migrants

    Family Reunification for Central American Migrants

    The Central American Minors Program (CAM) provides Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and Honduran children the opportunity to reunite with their parents living in the U.S. through refugee resettlement or parole. The Obama administration created CAM in 2014 and the Trump administration shut down the program in 2018. However, in March 2021, Biden announced he was restarting CAM in two phases. Beginning in March 2021, resettlement agencies started reopening cases that were closed in 2018, and in September 2021, they began accepting new applications. 

    Rising Numbers of Unaccompanied Minors

    Both versions of CAM were a response to growing numbers of unaccompanied Central American minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border and the high-risk nature of child migration. Since 2012, 77% of apprehended unaccompanied minors are from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Researchers attribute this to violence and organized crime in Northern Triangle countries which have targeted youth in recent years. Another motivator for unaccompanied minor migration is reunification with parents in the U.S. and U.S. immigration policy that favors Central American children once they arrive. However, the journey to the U.S. is dangerous, as minors are more vulnerable to criminal organizations and human trafficking during travel. 

    UAC Apprehensions at the Southwest Border, by Country of Origin, FY2008-FY2021, CRS

    In 2014, the number of unaccompanied minor encounters reached what was then a record high of 68,541 apprehensions. In response, Obama started CAM to discourage irregular and unsafe migration of children. The program reviewed 6,300 applications, approved 99% of them, and transported about 4,600 children and qualifying relatives to the U.S. However, when the Trump administration shut down CAM in 2018,  2,714 approved children did not immigrate. 

    The pandemic worsened economic conditions in Northern Triangle countries and exacerbated violence against at-risk children, many of whom were forced to quarantine with their abusers. In 2021, there was a new peak in unaccompanied minor encounters with 112,192 apprehensions in the first 10 months, prompting the Biden administration to relaunch CAM. 

    How does it work?

    First, parents who want to bring their children living in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras to the U.S. fill out an application through a refugee resettlement agency. Under the Obama administration, only parents who were Lawful Permanent Residents, Temporary Protected Status, Parole, Deferred Action, Deferred Enforced Departure, or Withholding of Removal could apply. Biden extended eligibility to legal guardians in all these categories, and parents or guardians with pending asylum applications or pending US visa petitions filed before May 15, 2021. Next, humanitarian offices in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras make contact with the child. Minors may be stepchildren or adopted, but must be under the age of 21 and unmarried. Once contact has been made, the child goes through multiple rounds of questioning at a humanitarian office, and agencies determine if the child is eligible for refugee status or parole. If approved, parents must pay for and submit a DNA test, and guardians must prove their guardianship with an affidavit. Their children are then flown to the U.S. 

    Recent developments

    Biden’s eligibility requirements, which some expect will expand the program by 100,000 petitioners, have been the most significant change to CAM. However, in January 2022, the attorneys general in Texas, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against CAM. They state that the program is illegal because it rewards undocumented immigrants, and Biden does not have the authority to enact it without the approval of Congress.

    Arguments in Support of CAM

    Proponents describe CAM as an effective pathway to legally reunite Central American children with their parents. To supporters, it represents a humanitarian exercise offering a new model for refugee adjudication, because it prioritizes the safety of minors. For example, minors that are not eligible for refugee status can still be paroled in the U.S. if they are found in danger. That being said, some argue that children will travel unaccompanied to the border whether or not they are accepted to CAM because there is a greater guarantee they will be admitted into the U.S. once they arrive.

    Supporters also assert that CAM will decrease unaccompanied minor arrivals at the border. The program aimed to be the primary immigration channel for Central American minors, reducing border crossing. After its implementation in 2014 unaccompanied minor encounters decreased by 45%, although this did not last. Therefore, opponents say that CAM instead incentivizes the irregular migration of parents who will be able to bring their children later.

    Arguments against CAM

    A major criticism of CAM is that its current structure does not help or reach enough children in need. Of the 3,131 cases closed in March 2018, only 1,472 were reopened by February 2022, and the program’s first year saw an 82% decrease in the number of applicants given refugee status. Critics contend that the program only reaches a fraction of Central American children seeking reunification with their parents. Notably, 86% of qualifying children under Obama were Salvadoran, leaving out many children in Guatemala and Honduras. Additionally, the long application process and financial barriers complicate the process for parents in the U.S., while limited language access, dangerous journeys to interview locations, and safety risks while awaiting CAM determinations make it difficult for children in their home countries. On the other hand, supporters praise the program for the speed under which it was originally designed and its innovative approach to immigration policy.

    Critics also argue that CAM burdens resettlement agencies and U.S. resources. Expanded eligibility and local office closures under Trump have overwhelmed refugee resettlement agencies with old and new cases only they can file. Furthermore, the resettlement of CAM recipients places added pressure on U.S. social services, like schools and healthcare programs, where children are settled. 

    Lastly, opponents claim that CAM increases irregular migration and takes away resources from other Latin American refugees. The eligible immigration status categories are usually given to undocumented migrants, so some say that the program disincentivizes migrants from using lawful immigration pathways like sponsoring their children through green cards. They also contend that these children do not meet refugee status and take away spots from the refugee cap, thereby decreasing the amount of other Latin American refugees allowed to immigrate. However, supporters maintain that the CAM is an essential lifeline for Central American children at risk of persecution and violence, regardless of their ability to meet refugee status.