Search

Begin New Search Topic Deportation Political Geography North America

1. Ten Likely Changes to Immigration Policy Under Trump 2.0

Author:
Elizabeth Carlson and Charles Wheeler
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
During his first administration, former President Trump adopted aggressive anti-immigrant policies, which included family separation, a ban on individuals from Muslim-majority countries, stringent border policies like the Remain in Mexico and Title 42, and attempted terminations of programs such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for several national groups. Attorneys and representatives for immigrants had some success in pushing back against the administration’s most extreme measures through litigation and advocacy. Should they return to the White House, Trump and his supporters have promised to enact an even more draconian anti-immigrant agenda, including a commitment to conducting the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, ending birthright citizenship (which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment), and revoking humanitarian protections for those already in the United States. Many of these efforts, of course, will be challenged in court. This article summarizes 10 likely immigration initiatives under a second Trump administration. It seeks to educate members of the public who value the crucial role and myriad contributions of immigrants and refugees — past and present — in the United States. It will also outline how advocates can fight to protect their clients from these measures.
Topic:
Immigration, Donald Trump, Deportation, and Immigration Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Will DACA Recipients Return to Their Birth Countries If DACA Is Ended?

Author:
Robert Courtney Smith
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Will recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) leave the United States if a legal challenge succeeds in ending this important program? The fate of over 600,000 current DACA recipients may depend on answers to this question in one expert report and one online survey question, which a Texas District Court found to show “a quantifiable percentage” would leave. Had the District Court in its DACA ruling not credited these sources, Texas’ lawsuit could have collapsed, and DACA would persist. The issue of whether DACA recipients will leave if DACA is ended will matter as this case is litigated, most likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. Drawing on research on immigrant return, DACA recipients, survey questions, priming, and intention-behavior gap, this paper argues that this expert report and the single online survey question used by the District Court cannot support the inferences regarding the return of DACA recipients to their birth countries. Rather, relevant research points toward DACA recipients staying in the United States, even if DACA were terminated. The paper recommends offering DACA recipients and long term undocumented residents a short path to legal status and citizenship, reassessing whether these two sources can support the conclusions drawn by the District Court; and analyzing the benefits accruing from DACA to Texas and all Texans, including US citizen children of DACA recipients, in assessing the claimed injury to the state.
Topic:
Migration, Supreme Court, Deportation, and DACA
Political Geography:
North America, Texas, and United States of America

3. Immigration Enforcement and the Mental Health of Latino High School Students

Author:
Randy Capps, Jodi Berger Cardoso, Kalina Brabeck, Michael Fix, and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
As public discourse around immigration has become more highly charged and immigration policies have seen sweeping changes in the United States, immigration enforcement has generated fear in immigrant communities across the country—fears that extend beyond the unauthorized immigrant population to immigrant families with U.S.-born children and legal immigrants. This report explores how fear of immigration enforcement is related to the mental health and school engagement of young Latinos, the fastest-growing group of high school students nationwide. It also considers the role of other stressors, including discrimination and economic hardship, and factors that may support students’ resilience, such as spirituality and strong family relationships. This analysis draws its findings from a study that was conducted by researchers from the Migration Policy Institute, University of Houston, and Rhode Island College during the 2018–19 school year and that had two components: self-assessments completed by hundreds of Latino students in 11 high schools, and semistructured interviews with dozens of education professionals and community experts. The two study sites—Harris County, TX and Rhode Island—offer contrasting immigration-enforcement contexts. Among the study’s findings are: A majority of the students in both Harris County and Rhode Island (67 percent versus 52 percent) feared that someone close to them would be arrested and deported. While fears were more common among youth in Harris County, which has a higher level of immigration enforcement, these findings suggest deportation fears are not limited to places where enforcement is widespread. More than half of the students reported symptoms of mental-health conditions such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or depression at levels high enough to warrant treatment. Students who feared immigration enforcement most acutely—and who changed their behaviors as a result—had the worst mental-health outcomes. Almost one-third of students in the study had changed their behavior as a result of enforcement fears. In interviews, educators also described school and community strategies for supporting Latino students’ mental health, including approaches to establishing a welcoming environment, reforming disciplinary practices, and connecting students with in-house and external mental-health resources.
Topic:
Education, Immigration, Law Enforcement, Mental Health, Deportation, and Latino Issues
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. One Year after the U.S.-Mexico Agreement: Reshaping Mexico’s Migration Policies

Author:
Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
On June 7, 2019, after months of heightened Central American migration through Mexico to the United States, the Mexican and U.S. governments signed an agreement to work together to manage the migration of Central American asylum seekers and other migrants. This ushered in an intense period of policy and institutional change that is reshaping Mexico’s immigration enforcement and humanitarian protection systems. After being threatened with steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Mexico agreed to step up enforcement efforts, accepted the expansion of the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, also known as Remain in Mexico) along the U.S.-Mexico border, and promised to increase collaboration with the United States to disrupt migrant-smuggling networks. In turn, the United States pledged to expedite the asylum cases of migrants waiting in Mexico under MPP and invest in economic development efforts in southern Mexico and Central America to address the drivers of migration. While the full impact of the deal will likely take years to unfold, this policy brief takes stock of what has changed in the first year since its signing. It charts trends in migrant apprehensions and returns by Mexican authorities, and the volume of asylum applications filed in Mexico. The brief also examines challenges that have intensified during this time, including the precarious conditions many migrants face while waiting in Mexican border communities for their U.S. asylum cases to be heard and the COVID-19 pandemic that hit in early 2020. Looking ahead, the brief highlights opportunities for further policy development.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Immigration, Border Control, Refugees, Asylum, Deportation, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Central America, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

5. Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico Border Immigration Enforcement System: A Policy Road Map

Author:
Doris Meissner
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The immigration enforcement regime at the U.S.-Mexico border offers a vivid example of how existing policies, laws, and resource investments are markedly out of step with new migration realities and future needs. A border enforcement system designed to address the once-dominant flows of single adults from Mexico seeking to enter the United States illegally for work is ill prepared to deal with more complex mixed flows of families and unaccompanied children from Central America, some seeking humanitarian protection, others opportunity. Consistent with its world view of immigration as threat, the Trump administration has responded by shutting down any meaningful access to humanitarian protection and asylum, by invoking a public health authority to expel more than 205,000 arrivals during the COVID-19 pandemic, and by constructing hundreds of miles of border barriers. Yet these strategies cannot succeed over the long term, nor are they consistent with U.S. law and international agreements and principles on protection. In this road map, MPI Senior Fellow and former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner Doris Meissner outlines some of the steps to a more effective approach, one that builds on border management as an enduring function. Rather than a sole focus on thwarting illegal arrivals, successful border management requires cross-agency and cross-governmental collaboration that marries effective border security with fair, humane enforcement. This report is part of MPI’s multiyear Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, which is generating a big-picture, evidence-driven vision for the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. To learn more about the initiative and read related research, check out the initiative’s home page.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Immigration, Governance, Border Control, Asylum, and Deportation
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

6. Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Author:
Partisia Macias-Rojas
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff’s departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law’s deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law’s widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA’s enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA’s criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008).Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA’s most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA’s criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA’s criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the under-studied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Domestic Politics, and Deportation
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America