ACE

Author: Avery Shields

  • President Biden’s 2021 Family Reunification Task Force

    President Biden’s 2021 Family Reunification Task Force

    Background

    Beginning in May 2018, President Trump enacted an immigration strategy referred to as “Zero Tolerance Policy,” referring to the prevention of illegal border crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. The new policy required Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to prosecute individuals illegally crossing the border as well as those who came to the border in request for asylum. What resulted was the separation and detention of several thousand migrant children at the border and the deportation of all adult migrants including the parents and guardians of the children. This forced separation has been widely criticized by policymakers, other nations, and humanitarian organizations.

    What is the Family Reunification Task Force?

    About 2,000 children were reunited with their families before the end of President Trump’s term in office. However, given varied access to services like internet and phone use and the limited capacity of nonprofit organizations, several thousand children remained at the U.S.-Mexico border by 2021. As a result, President Biden announced “The President’s Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families.” This task force would utilize the combined efforts of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice, as well as migrant rights organizations.

    The President’s Task Force created a website allowing deported parents to contact the federal government to be reunited with their children. The website, Together.gov, allows parents to register for support services that may grant parents the ability to travel to the United States for a maximum of 3 years to reunite with their lost children under “humanitarian parole” status. A concern for migrants may be that they do not wish to provide their personal information to a U.S. government website given that the Together.gov site states that, “…information may be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection…”. Many see this as a deterrent for families who may wish to reunite with their children but do not want their information to be on file with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

    The Family Reunification Task Force publishes progress reports to update the public. According to the May 2022 report, the Task Force has registered 1,344 families for special services. Among these, 260 families have been reunified, and 329 are receiving assistance from the government. The Task Force is projected to end in September 2022. It is unclear whether the organization will be able to reunify all the families separated by the Zero Tolerance Policy by this deadline. 

    Critiques of the Task Force

    Several Republican Congresspeople have made remarks about Biden’s handling of the Family Reunification process. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued that allowing guardians to obtain lawful presence in the United States to reunite with their children goes against the typical practice for those previously expelled for illegal border crossing. Specifically, Cruz took issue with the phrasing “household members” by arguing it suggests non-family members may be admitted into the U.S. under Biden’s Task Force. Cruz’s stance echoes several other politicians’ views that the Department of Homeland Security should not make exceptions to laws that prevent illegal migrants from reentering the nation for 5 to 20 years following their deportation. 

    Border patrol and DHS officials have also been critical of the Task Force. In an interview with NPR, National Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted that many border personnel feel the plan does not do enough to support the children still detained at the border and the staff in charge of their well-being. Mayorkas relays the sentiment that the Department of Homeland Security needs more and better equipment and increased personnel to care for these children. Many border security agents have also complained of the Biden administration’s reluctance to increase border security which makes their work increasingly difficult.

  • President Biden’s Proposed U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 1177)

    President Biden’s Proposed U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 1177)

    Bill H.R. 1177, otherwise known as the United States Citizenship Act, was introduced by President Biden on the first day of his presidency in 2021. The bill, if passed, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act enacted in 1952 and mark the first significant change in U.S. immigration policy in several decades. As it stands, H.R. 1177 was introduced to the House of Representatives but has not yet been voted on as of June 30, 2022. 

    The U.S. Citizenship Act would change the way migrants and asylum seekers are received and treated upon arrival in the United States. The core aim of the act is to “provide an earned path to citizenship, to address the root causes of migration and responsibly manage the southern border, and to reform the immigrant visa system”. The proposed bill begins by changing the terminology to describe new arrivals in the U.S. from the former “alien” to the new term, “non-citizen. Many felt that the previous terms were dehumanizing to migrants. 

    Earned Citizenship and DACA

    Title I of H.R. 1177 offers non-citizens the opportunity to “earn” citizenship if they have a clear criminal record and pass a national security background check. This earned citizenship allows formerly illegal migrants to apply for work authorization and makes them eligible for coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Spouses and children are covered by their partner’s or parent’s citizenship application and are not required to apply for themselves, but must also pass both types of background checks. The earned citizenship must be renewed every six years. The act also allows those who entered the United States as children and received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status to obtain citizenship through a streamlined process. Activists have long pushed for permanent status for DACA recipients.

    Addressing Root Causes of Migration

    Title II of the U.S. Citizenship Act establishes a strategy for reform in Central America that aims to reduce the rate at which migrants appear at the southern border. By addressing prevalent issues cited by migrants as reasons for migration, such as sexual, gender-based, or domestic violence, extreme poverty, criminal violence, and corruption, the United States aims to aid in improving Central American livelihood to decrease the need to emigrate. To do so, the U.S. Citizenship Act would allocate $1 billion per year to a program entitled The U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America. However, concerns over the legitimacy and necessity of U.S. intervention in Central America have arisen.

    Improving Border Infrastructure

    H.R. 1177 would set a new precedent for the conditions and capabilities of the resources available to migrants at the border between the United States and Mexico. For example, H.R 1177 would include a wide range of facility updates that ensure arrivals at the border receive adequate medical care, clean water for drinking and bathing, proper nutrition, clothing, shelter (which includes appropriate sleeping accommodations for those held overnight), resources to practice one’s religion, and accessible information about migrants’ legal rights at the border. Proponents believe these protections would establish the United States as a more welcoming and secure destination for migrants and asylum-seekers compared to the former Immigration and Nationality Act. 

    H.R. 1177 also seeks to address child welfare at the border. To ensure that children’s rights are protected at the border, the U.S. Citizenship Act requires that all Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel whose jobs require that they come into contact with children must complete child welfare  training. Additionally, the bill would create accessible systems to report cases of child abuse and neglect and would prohibit DHS personnel from separating children from their legal guardians. These provisions, if passed, would improve pre-existing protections of migrant children and families under U.S. law. Current protections include access to fair immigration proceedings, detention in the “most humane” conditions available, and the right to legal representation. These existing migrant protections do not prevent forced separation of children from their parents, and do not guarantee that children will be properly cared for and protected while in DHS custody. After the family separation scandal under the Trump Presidency, activists renewed calls for stronger protections for children in U.S. border facilities.

    Strengthening Humanitarian Responses for Refugees

    Subtitle B of H.R. 1177 establishes provisions to improve how immigrants and refugees are welcomed and aided upon arrival to the United States. This section of the U.S. Citizenship Act highlights an alliance between the Secretary of State and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to increase the number of refugees that the U.S. can admit, as well as the quality of care taken to ensure their well being once in the country. 

    Additionally, given lengthy waiting periods for those filing refugee claims worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, Subtitle B creates provisions that aim to improve the process of applying for asylum and refugee status. These provisions include ensuring that all refugee-seekers receive information about their rights, due process and access to existing protections, proper screening and security measures, and required documentation to ensure freedom of movement and social services. Subtitle B also expands upon current temporary shelter networks for newly-admitted refugees, especially for migrants from vulnerable populations, including women and unaccompanied children. Proponents of H.R. 1177 have emphasized the importance of protecting refugees and vulnerable populations of migrants, and argue that the bill would greatly improve the United States’ asylum program and set newly-admitted migrants on track for prosperity in their new homes. 

    Critiques of the Bill

    Those against the passage of H.R. 1177 or some of its many changes to the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act have several reasons for their opposition. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) argues that the legislation invites more illegal migrants at a time when public health concerns are at their highest. Senator Cotton states that the bill has “no regard for the health and security of Americans”. Several democratic politicians have also taken this view of H.R. 1177, with Representative Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) stating “The way we’re doing it right now is catastrophic and is a recipe for disaster in the middle of a pandemic.” 

    Others argue that strengthening the United States’ humanitarian response to illegal migrants is unnecessary, and that we should instead focus on increasing our border security to prevent migrants from entering the country in the first place. Several Senate Republicans feared that this act would “incentivize illegal immigration” that would spur an overwhelming influx of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border.

  • Introduction to Climate Migration

    Introduction to Climate Migration

    In 2019 alone, 2,000 natural disasters displaced roughly 24.9 million people worldwide. By 2050, 150 to 200 million people will likely be displaced as a result of “climate shocks” – extreme weather events caused by climate change that impact the durability and sustainability of communities. While most displaced populations will migrate within their home country, the number of international migrants is projected to increase as climate change tests countries’ resiliency through the duration of the 21st century. 

    Sea level rise as a result of global temperature increase poses an extreme risk of flooding to those living in low-altitude and coastal areas. In Bangladesh, one of a handful of countries that have already begun to experience climate migration, the poorest citizens tend to live in the low-lying coastal zones that are most impacted by flooding. Bangladesh’s susceptibility to drought, clean water shortages, cyclones, floods, and coastal and delta erosion cause an estimated 500,000 people to migrate to urban areas every year. The vast majority of internal migrants arrive in Dhaka, Gazipur, and Narayanganj, causing these cities to reach abnormally high population densities, decreasing living standards. Cities like these have a limited capacity for providing clean water, shelter, and employment to hundreds of thousands of climate migrants fleeing the flooded coasts.

    Climate processes such as water scarcity, sea level rise, drought, salinization, and eutrophication (leaching of chemicals into water sources) are major causes of forced migration. Climate processes involve years of shifting environments, but climate events like flooding, storms, and wildfires, can degrade entire habitats in a matter of days and impact entire populations for decades. Physical barriers such as seawalls, levees, and dams provide temporary relief, but implementing long-term solutions to climate change is the only way to subdue forced climate migration. Many countries’ governments, however, do not recognize these climate processes as being directly related to climate change, which limits their willingness and ability to implement long-term solutions.

    The existence of climate change is undisputed by 97% of the scientific community, but its effects on the human population are still argued. Complexities at the intersection between climate change, conflict, and displacement allow for debate over whether climate migration is a solution or a problem itself. Some scientists have referred to climate migration as an “adaptation strategy” because it presents itself as a temporary solution to habitat change and destruction. Others argue that as climate change affects the availability of natural resources like drinkable water, climate migrants will arrive in urban areas that do not have the means to provide for the increase in population. 

    Historically, climate migration has largely taken place internally, leading to the prioritization of national protocols. Nations will be forced to address climate migration domestically as well as internationally. Bangladesh has put in place a Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF), which allocates $70 million (USD) to fund government projects that will mitigate the adverse effects of internal climate migration as well as prevent communities from reaching the point of forced migration. Future projections of displaced people led the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2011 to determine that an expected influx of immigrants to the U.S was a result of water scarcity and consequential conflicts resulting from resource depletion. Migration conditions resulting from climate shocks and processes have exacerbated conflict and instability in countries, resulting in more severe political and humanitarian issues. 

    Resiliency plans are one of the key steps in addressing climate migration. One proposed strategy is to limit the climate change drivers that are pushing populations out of their homes, namely greenhouse gas emissions. However, both financial constraints and the time it takes for governments to implement strategies that could potentially reduce emissions and slow the process of climate change are major limitations, and many scientists believe that time is running out. A possible solution would be to instead focus funding on facilitating climate migration. Studies show that planned climate migration leads households to become more resilient in the face of climate shocks, whereas forced and sudden climate migration tends to lead to household vulnerability. Bangladesh’s CCTF plan works by providing the resources for households to understand their local risk of climate shocks, as well as by creating avenues that assist in planning migration ahead of time. This strategy may significantly reduce the need for emergency migration and post-disaster relief efforts. 

    Climate change disproportionately impacts countries and communities, which are historically marginalized, including non-industrial states which are the least responsible for the changing environment. Unfortunately, addressing the issue of forced migration does not tackle concerns over resource scarcity, which these disadvantaged countries will likely suffer from the most. Confronting the challenges associated with climate change and climate migration will require more international cooperation and resiliency planning that takes into consideration those countries that do not have the resources to prepare for the future.

  • Avery Shields, George Washington University

    Avery Shields, George Washington University

    Avery is a rising junior at the George Washington University studying political science and French, and she will be joining the ACE team as a member of the immigration policy team. While participating in an all-female national security scholar program, Avery’s work was published in a novel by CIA Senior Counterterrorism Advisor, Gina Bennett. Having taken courses in human rights theory and border studies, Avery’s interests include policy surrounding the protection of migrant workers in the U.S. and the reunification of children unjustly separated from their families at the border. She is also interested in researching European immigration, particularly the hazardous conditions faced by Middle Eastern and North African migrants when crossing the Mediterranean. In her free time, Avery enjoys reading, painting, and playing with her foster cat, Tito. Avery is passionate about women’s and LGBTQ+ rights and frequently takes part in protests and marches in Washington, D.C., in support of these causes and many more. Avery is thrilled to be researching and writing for the ACE team this summer!

    LinkedIn