Search

Begin New Search Topic Border Control Author Mike Nicholson

1. The Effects of Immigration Enforcement on Faith-Based Organizations: An Analysis of the FEER Survey

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Mike Nicholson
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrants, US families, and communities have been well-documented. However, less attention has been paid to their impact on faith-based organizations (FBOs). Faith communities provide a spiritual home, and extensive legal, resettlement, social service, health, and educational services for refugees and immigrants. This report presents the findings of the FEER (Federal Enforcement Effect Research) Survey, which explored the effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrant-serving Catholic institutions.[1] Many of these institutions arose in response to the needs of previous generations of immigrants and their children (Kerwin and George 2014, 14, 74-75). Most strongly identify with immigrants and have long served as crucial intermediaries between immigrant communities and the broader society (Campos 2014, 149-51).[2] Over its first two years, the Trump administration has consistently characterized immigrants as criminals, security risks, and an economic burden. Among its policy initiatives, the administration has supported major cuts in family-based immigration, attempted to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, reduced refugee admissions to historic lows, instituted admission bars on Muslim-majority countries, attempted to strip Temporary Protection Status (TPS) from all but a fraction of its beneficiaries, erected major new barriers to asylum, and proposed new rules regarding the public charge grounds of inadmissibility that would make it more difficult for poor and working class persons to obtain permanent residence. US immigration enforcement policies have separated children from their parents, criminally prosecuted asylum-seekers, expanded detention, increased arrests of non-citizens without criminal records, and militarized the US-Mexico border. These policies have failed to stem the flow of migrants and asylum-seekers: instead these flows have increased dramatically in recent months. These policies have succeeded, however, in devastating children, instilling fear in immigrant communities, blocking access to the US asylum system, and undermining immigrant integration (Kerwin 2018).[3] The FEER survey points to a paradox. On one hand, US enforcement policies have increased the demand for services such as legal screening, representation, naturalization, assistance to unaccompanied minors, and support to the US families of detainees and deportees. Many Catholic institutions have expanded their services to accommodate the increased demand for their services. On the other hand, their work with immigrants has been impeded by federal immigration policies that effectively prevent immigrants from driving, attending gatherings, applying for benefits, and accessing services for fear that these activities might lead to their deportation or the deportation of a family member. Among other top-line findings, 59 percent of 133 FEER respondents reported that “fear of apprehension or deportation” negatively affected immigrants’ access to their services, and 57 percent of 127 respondents reported that immigrant enforcement very negatively or negatively affected the participation of immigrants in their programs and ministries.
Topic:
Migration, Religion, Border Control, Immigrants, and Catholic Church
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

2. Proposed Public Charge Rule Would Significantly Reduce Legal Admissions and Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident Status of Working Class Persons

Author:
Donald Kerwin, Robert Warren, and Mike Nicholson
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
On October 10, 2018, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its long-anticipated proposed rule on inadmissibility on public charge grounds.1 The rule seeks to “better ensure” that applicants for admission to the United States as immigrants (permanent residents) and nonimmigrants (temporary residents),2 as well as applicants for adjustment to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status within the United States, will be “self-sufficient” and “not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their family, sponsor, and private organizations.”3 Under the proposed rule, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers would consider receipt of cash benefits and, in a break from the past, non-cash medical, housing, and food benefits in making public charge determinations. The proposed DHS rule details the factors — positive and negative — to be weighed in these decisions. Many commentators have sharply criticized the proposed rule, arguing that it would: • Deny admission and adjustment to large numbers of low-income persons who contribute substantially to the US economy, have US citizen and LPR family members, and present a very low risk of becoming financially dependent on the government. • Create a disincentive to the use of public benefits to meet the essential food, housing, and medical needs of US citizen, LPR, and other family members of persons who are directly affected by the rule. • Impede the legal immigration and integration of low-income, working-class immigrants and their families to the detriment of US communities and society. The authors share these concerns, but the study focuses more narrowly on the potential effect of the proposed rule on two populations, undocumented immigrants and nonimmigrants that would otherwise be eligible for LPR status based on a legally qualifying relationship to a US citizen or LPR living in their household. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) report analyzes how these populations in 2016 would have fared under the proposed rule. 1 Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 83 Fed. Reg. 51114 (proposed October 10, 2018) (to be codified at 8 CFR Parts 103, 212, 213, 214, 245 and 248) [hereinafter “DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule”]. 2 Nonimmigrants are noncitizens admitted for a temporary period and a particular purpose, such as foreign students or temporary workers. 3 DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule § III A. 2 CMS Report November 2018 After placing the rule in historic context, the paper profiles these two populations and examines the characteristics that would mitigate in favor of and against their inadmissibility. The study offers a snapshot of these two groups based on estimates derived from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS). It concludes that: • 2.25 million undocumented persons and 212,000 nonimmigrants would be directly affected by the proposed rule because they live with a US citizen or LPR family member who can petition for them. • These two groups live in households with an additional 5.32 million and 456,000 persons respectively, who would be indirectly impacted by the rule. • CMS’s estimates exclude several populations — such as the millions residing abroad who are waiting for a visa to become current (available) — that would be subject to the rule. Thus, the study substantially understates the number of persons who would be directly and indirectly affected by the rule. • A large percentage of the 2.25 million undocumented persons examined would be found inadmissible under the rule, although this population overwhelmingly consists of working- class persons. • As a result, the proposed rule should be viewed as a significant barrier to legal immigration and the integration of low-income immigrants and their US families. • Far lower rates of nonimmigrants — who earn more than the undocumented and have higher levels of education — would be found inadmissible under the rule. • The numbers and percentages of persons who would be found inadmissible under the rule cannot be predicted with precision due primarily to the discretion afforded USCIS officials in making inadmissibility determinations.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
United States and North America