Last March, researchers at the University of California published a pioneering study that links the “legitimizing effect” of the program with participants’ improved psychological well-being in California. The state has, by far, the largest population of beneficiaries, 223,000 people out of nearly 800,000 DACA recipients nationwide.
“Now that these people have experienced life with DACA, they have a new baseline to compare things to,” says Caitlin Patler, assistant professor of sociology at UC Davis.
Relief from deportation and authorization to work have “opened the door to so many opportunities and possibilities. They know how life can be.”
While they won’t have data on the emotional impact of the end of the program until they conduct more fieldwork in the coming years, Patler theorizes that it could potentially diminish mental well-being to conditions worse than before the program began. And the effects, the researchers say, are likely to not only be seen among DACA recipients themselves.
Patler says that DACA recipients have lost “ontological security.” They think about the personal information they have given the government and worry that they will be deported or unable to work or study, she says. “These young people cannot count on the promise of the future.”
The disruption, along with experiences of anti-immigrant sentiment, could lead to distress, negative emotions, depression and anxiety. At a behavioral level, they could also cause problems like diminished mental focus and concentration, says Patler.
Relying on analysis of IOM estimates from the Missing Migrants Project, the report states that at least 33,761 migrants were reported to have died or gone missing in the Mediterranean between 2000 and 2017 (as of 30 June). Professor Philippe Fargues of the European University Institute, the report's author, notes that this number likely under-reports the actual scale of the human tragedy, even as the record number of migrant deaths may have begun to subside in 2017 due in part to cooperation between the EU and Turkey, and now Libya, to stem migrant flows.
The report reviews available evidence on trans-Mediterranean irregular migration to Europe along various routes going back to the 1970s, particularly on the magnitude of the flows, the evolution of sea routes to Southern Europe, the characteristics of migrants, the extent to which one can separate between economic and forced movements, and mortality during the sea journey. The report also reflects on the causes of the so-called migration crisis – a record-high number of undocumented arrivals by sea between 2014 and 2016 – and the reasons for the substantial decrease in numbers in 2017. It concludes by identifying future data and research needs.
The rapid growth of the Latino population coupled with increasing tension between state and federal legislation leads to questions of group responsiveness and political efficacy under uncertain circumstances. In recent decades, the federal government has failed to pass an encompassing version of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) which seeks to offer a pathway to higher education and a future out of the shadows for many undocumented youth, a significant portion of them being Latino. Though the DREAM Act did not pass at the federal level, many states have proposed and passed similar legislation, this study focuses on the relationship between state passed DREAM Act legislation and its effects on the Latino youth residing in those states. We propose that those states with pseudo-DREAM Acts create a unique environment that fosters participation among the Latino youth residing within the states in question. Though much work has focused on Latino responsiveness of anti-immigrant legislation, very little has been done looking at responsiveness of positive immigrant legislation. We hope to fill this gap by examining the effect that state-level DREAM Acts can have on Latino populations regarding political efficacy and participation, both formal and informal.
The 1942 film classic "Casablanca” — set in WWII and filled with immigration and refugee themes -- is celebrating its 75th anniversary. It ends as Rick (Humphrey Bogart) and Capt. Renault (Claude Rains) walked into the misty night on their way to a Free French garrison and “a beautiful friendship.”
The multi-generational project of squaring executive governance with the rule of law is coming to a head. Hardly a week passes without commentators summonsing the rule of law ideal to pass judgment on the legitimacy or desirability of some executive action. But the more we talk about the rule of law, the further it seems to slip away. Rather than look to the rule of law for guidance, this Article shines critical light on what the rule of law ideal cannot tell us. Moreover, this Article explains why even well-intended efforts to square the rule of law with trends in governance can be counterproductive. To anchor these points, the Article presents comparative case studies of President Obama’s and President Trump’s signature immigration policies and the rule of law debates surrounding them. The Obama-Trump juxtaposition offers a portrait of some disquieting trends, not only for presidential administration, but also in how commentators think and talk about the rule of law. This Article intervenes with some prescriptions moving forward—including away from rule of law talk, and towards doctrines and institutional arrangements that could more effectively check presidential power.
"There were no Americans at the first Thanksgiving. The newer set of immigrants, recently arrived from England, considered themselves thoroughly English. And so they remained: Almost two decades after the feast, in describing the Pequot War, William Bradford lamented an Indian attack `upon the English at Connecticut.'”
"The Pilgrims no doubt would’ve been shocked to find that their cultural potluck at the first Thanksgiving was also a family reunion with a long-lost, if rather diluted, European clan. But peoples, like lands, change over time. In 1621, the English, Dutch, French and Spanish were the strangers at the American feast. They conquered and stayed. But the breadth of human history, and the expanse of human migration, tells us finders are not forever keepers. And the strange is often more familiar than we know."
Clinton carried Minnesota by capturing votes in the urban centers of the state. Trump captured votes throughout the rest of the state where his immigration talking points were well received.
Today, Minnesota, like much of the country, continues to be divided politically and on the particular issue of immigration. As MPR recently reported, that divide is stark when rural and urban areas of the state are compared.
Activists and politicians are trying to close the gap. As the Star Tribune reports, the mayor of St. Cloud "holds chili feeds at his house to bridge the cultural gaps among different races and religions" while a community group, #UniteCloud, held a "panel discussion called “I Don’t Mean to Offend You, But …” to allow people born in or around St. Cloud to ask lingering or nagging questions of Muslims from several different countries."
It has been almost 10 months since PresidentDonald Trump was inaugurated. Not surprising given his campaign's focus on immigration, President Trump has taken a number of major initiatives on immigration enforcement. In my estimation, a central organizing principle of his administration immigration measures has been to reduce the number of noncitizens, legal immigrants as well as undocumented ones, in the United States. Maria Sacchetti and Nick Miroff for the Washington Postrefer to the measures as "the wall that no one can see."
The now iconic wall along the U.S./Mexico border wall was a staple of the Trump campaign events and has been one of his high profile policy initiatives. We will see whether a wall will in fact be built. Trump's endorsement of building a wall has been met with cheers in some circles. The stated goal of the wall is to decrease undocumented immigration from Mexico.
The various iterations of the "travel ban" or "Muslim ban" made travel from a number of predominantly Muslim nations difficult and uncertain for a time. The ban, combined with "extreme vetting" of Muslim noncitizens seeking to enter the United States, is designed to reduce migration.
The interior and border security immigration enforcement orders issued shortly after the inauguration, included calls for more enforcement officers, punishment of "sanctuary cities," expanded detention through the end of "catch and release," greatly expanded expedited removal (that some might characterize as summary removals), and much more.
In recent weeks, President Trump has ended the Temporary Protected Status of tens of thousands of Nicaraguans and Haitians who fled their countries after natural disasters.
President Trump reduced the numbers of refugees to be annually admitted to the United States to 45,000, a historic low.
President Trump also endorsed the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which is expressly aimed at reducing legal immigration by one-half and from one million immigrants a year to 500,000. The Act would not solve the current problems with the current American immigration system, but in fact would in all likelihood exacerbate them.
Co-sponsored by Republican Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Purdue(R-Ga), the RAISE Act would drastically reshape American immigration by reducing family-based legal immigration.
Today, the U.S. government annually grants lawful permanent residence to approximately one million immigrants, with Mexico, China, and India sending the most immigrants to the United States. A majority of visas under the U.S. immigration laws, which are designed to promote family reunification, currently are allocated to visa applicants who have U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident family members currently living in the United States. The RAISE Act would eliminate family immigrant visas beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents; parents and adult children would no longer be eligible for family visas. The Act does so to achieve its ultimate aim of reducing legal immigration by one-half over the next decade, from roughly one million to 500,000 a year.
Besides dramatically cutting family-based immigration, the RAISE Act would modify the current immigrant visa scheme with a points system based on “merit.” Under the proposed merit-based system, visa applicants would earn points for high-paying job offers, advanced degrees, and the ability to make financial investments of more than one million dollars in the United States. Persons in their twenties with high English language proficiency scores, would also receive more points than other visa applicants. An applicant with sufficient points would be eligible for a merit-based immigrant visa.
Although substantially changing the rules for lawful immigration, the RAISE Act would not make changes in the immigration laws in response to the persistent demand by employers in the United States for low- and medium-skilled workers. The Act would do nothing to help ensure the lawful admission of adequate numbers of workers for the agriculture, construction, and service industries. It thus fails to provide for the availability of workers to fill the jobs in those industries, which undocumented immigrants perform in large numbers today.
In no small part because of unrealistic restrictions on legal immigration under current law, roughly eleven million undocumented immigrants currently live in the United States. Besides not providing a path to legalization for that population, the RAISE Act by reducing family immigrant visas would increase pressures for undocumented immigration, as noncitizens would seek to reunite with family members outside legally-authorized avenues. If Congress passed the Act, changes in the law would likely result in increased pressures for undocumented immigration than exist currently and an increase in the overall population of undocumented immigrants.
Ultimately, the Trump administration seeks to reduce all immigration to the United States. We are likely to see continuation of policies that seek to reduce the numbers of noncitizens living in the United States. And make no mistake about it -- the efforts to reduce the immigrant population is not limited to removal of undocumented immigrants from the country. President Trump seeks to reshape legal as well as undocumented immigration.
Josh Kun for LA Weekleyexplains "How L.A. Mariachi Helped Make One of Blondie’s Biggest Hits." He explains how the band rin ecorded their fifth alum AutoAmerican in Los Angeles:
"Among the songs produced during those early September sessions was "The Tide Is High," originally written by Jamaican legend John Holt and recorded by his rock-steady trio The Paragons in 1966. Blondie's version replicates the original's classic Caribbean reggae strut — a sound that had vibrantly left its mark on the sound of new wave and punk scenes in New York and London — but then throws in a Latin American curve ball. They nudge it closer to nearby Mexico and Cuba: The melody is played by trumpets and violins in the style of modern Mexican mariachi and the percussion section surrounds a steel drum with congas and timbales typically found on rumbas and mambos. It wasn't just the city's sunshine mythology and seismic doom that had made their way into the new album. It was the city's position as a key geographic and cultural hub within greater Latin America, the city's history as a mecca of Mexican music and as a laboratory for experiments in Afro-Cuban dance music in East Los Angeles pasta restaurants, downtown ballrooms, Sunset Strip supper clubs and Hollywood soundstages. The city had indeed rubbed off."
It may well be a momentous Thanksgiving in San Francisco, where a case that grabbed the nation's attention -- and President Trump relied upon in arguing for his immigration enforcement agenda -- is in the hands of a jury.
The jurors must decide whether 45-year-old Jose Ines Garcia Zarate intentionally and willfully fired a gun on Pier 14, as prosecutors allege, or whether Steinle’s death on July 1, 2015, was simply a tragic accident, as Garcia Zarate’s attorneys contend. The jurors went home yesterday evening without reaching a verdict.
Steinle was killed as she walked with her father toward the end of the pier by a bullet that ricocheted off the concrete ground and flew 78 feet into her back.
Garcia Zarate, a homeless Mexican citizen with a history of nonviolent drug crimes and deportations, has admitted handling the weapon — a .40-caliber Sig Sauer handgun that had been stolen four days earlier from the parked car of an off-duty federal ranger. He is facing charges of murder, being a felon in possession of a firearm and assault with a semiautomatic weapon in connection to the shooting.
With comprehensive immigration reform dead for the foreseeable future, immigration laws enacted at the subfederal level -- cities, counties, and states -- have become even more important. Arizona has dominated media coverage and become the popular representation of the states’ response to immigration by enacting SB 1070 and other notoriously anti-immigrant laws. Illinois, by contrast, has received relatively little media coverage for enacting laws that benefit the immigrants within its jurisdiction. The reality on the ground is that subfederal jurisdictions in the United States have taken very divergent paths on the issue of immigration regulation.
Compiling city, county, and state immigration laws from 2005-2011, we created a unique database that enables us to build the Immigrant Climate Index (“ICI”): a measure of the divergent immigration climates created by individual jurisdictions. The reasons for this divergence have received surprisingly little analysis; existing analysis has focused on the presence and effect of immigrants and the political ideology of the subfederal jurisdictions.
Our study demonstrates that there is another important factor to consider. Instead of looking outward to the foreign immigrants moving into a jurisdiction, we look inward and study the impact of domestic migrants (those who moved into a state from another state within the past year). Using panel regressions incorporating our ICI scores and census data, we observe that domestic migrants are affecting the immigration climate of their new home states. Domestic migrants are more likely to be educated and to be politically active, and thus to carry their immigration preferences to their new states. Specifically, domestic migrants coming from states with negative ICI scores have a negative effect on their new states’ ICI scores. Moreover, the influence of domestic migrants is magnified, and more negative, when they move from states that are predominantly white, to states with large immigrant populations. Our results support a story of intergroup conflict, in which domestic migrants react negatively to the racial, ethnic, and cultural dislocation they experience in their new home states.
Photo Howard Lipin//The San Diego Union-Tribune via AP
On Saturday, Evelia Reyes and Brian Houston were married in a cross-border ceremony at Friendship Park in San Diego. A Mexican judge officiated the wedding.
The couple married at Friendship Park because Ms. Reyes was unable to get permission to come to the United States. And Mr. Houston was unable to travel to Mexico.
The wedding lasted about three minutes (the time allotted to families who are selected for contact visits at Friendship Park). Both the bride and groom had to bring their own rings as individuals are not allowed to exchange goods during these meetings.
The couple met three years ago in Tijuana. They've built their relationship through phone calls and conversation through the border fence on Saturdays and Sundays.
Their story has received wide press coverage including by HuffPo, People, and WaPo.
Interestingly, this isn't the first cross border wedding we've brought to your attention. In 2013, we highlighted a cross-border wedding on the international bridge in El Paso.
Butterfly Story Collective is a network of local storytelling projects and events produced by immigrants and about the immigrant experience in the United States. Each project is locally produced by its participants, and can take various forms, including videos, live events, story circles, music, art installations, blogs, among others. In this case, it's a podcast.
Whatever the form, the practice that guides the Collective is one of ethical storytelling, which puts the person who lived through a particular experience in control of how their story is told. As a space to share resources, learn from one another and strengthen local relationships, the Butterfly Story Collective strives to create more intimate connections through the collective power of storytelling.
Deniss, a graduate student at University of California at Davis joins Andrea Gaytan of the AB540 & Undocumented Student Center to share her experience of growing up in a conservative part of California as undocumented, of reconnecting to her indigenous identity in college, and of finding strength in the joy and laughter of her community.
This casebook is the first to focus on the interaction of the U.S. legal system with Mexican law in the border region. The work presents American court decisions supplemented with the author’s commentary and study questions. As the U.S.-Mexico border has generated a wide array of controversies, the casebook covers boundary questions, border detentions, immigrants’ rights, family law, real estate transactions, finance and trade, torts, crimes, environmental law, and Mexican law within the United States. It will teach law students in law, public policy, and undergraduate courses about the power and limitations of law in resolving border-related disputes.
Devlin Barrett and Carol D. Leonnig for the Washington Postreport that the Trump administration’s rollout of its first travel ban led federal agents to violate court orders by telling airlines not to let certain passengers board U.S.-bound flights, according to an internal watchdog.
In a letter Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general notified lawmakers of the violations. He also alerted them that his findings have become bogged down in a battle with the department over redactions that he said would obscure the true failures of the administration’s handling of the first travel ban. In the early days of the Trump administration, the president signed an executive order temporarily banning entry to the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, as well as refugees.
“While CBP was compliant at U.S. ports of entry with travelers who had already arrived, CBP was very aggressive in preventing affected travelers from boarding aircraft bound for the United States, and took actions that, in our view, violated two separate court orders that enjoined them from this activity,” Roth’s letter says.
For instance, after a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order on Jan. 29 instructing CBP not to notify airlines that passengers will be “detained or returned based solely on the basis of the Executive Order,” government documents show that agents were doing precisely that two days later at Boston Logan International Airport.
Swiss Airlines, for example, was notified on Jan. 31 that a prospective passenger, a 31-year-old Iranian, would probably be denied entry to the United States. Dozens of similarly eligible travelers were not allowed to board flights that they should have been able to board, according to a person familiar with the inspector general’s findings.
Here is big news on the "sanctuary cities" front. A federal judge has permanently blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from "sanctuary cities," cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration enforcement authorities. U.S. District Court Judge William Orrickissued the ruling yesterday in lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara. Judge Orrick said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress. The ruling is here. Download Summary-Judgment
As the Washington Postsummarizes the ruling, Judge Orrick "found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.
“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”
Recent high-profile, isolated incidents of violent crime committed by deportable noncitizens have led to increased public attention paid to so-called “sanctuary” cities, with some policymakers calling for the eradication of policies limiting local officials role in the enforcement of immigration law. This current public and political debate provides an opportunity to critically examine the existing literature on immigrant “sanctuaries.” We begin by offering a broad definition and description of “sanctuary” policies. We follow by discussing how and why such policies have evolved since the early 1980s. Considering the public safety concerns often articulated in contemporary political discourse, we then offer possible sociological explanations regarding how these policies might either be positively or negatively associated with crime. We subsequently highlight findings from existing empirical research that examines the relationship between the adoption or presence of “sanctuary” policies and crime. The few empirical studies that exist illustrate a “null” or negative relationship between these policies and crime. We conclude by offering possible directions for future research.
Yesterday, Acting Secretary of Homeland SecurityElaine Dukeannounced the "decision to terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Haiti with a delayed effective date of 18 months to allow for an orderly transition before the designation terminates on July 22, 2019. This decision follows then-Secretary Kelly’s announcement in May 2017 that Haiti had made considerable progress, and that the country’s designation will likely not be extended past six months.
The decision to terminate TPS for Haiti was made after a review of the conditions upon which the country’s original designation were based and whether those extraordinary but temporary conditions prevented Haiti from adequately handling the return of their nationals, as required by statute. Based on all available information, including recommendations received as part of an inter-agency consultation process, Acting Secretary Duke determined that those extraordinary but temporary conditions caused by the 2010 earthquake no longer exist. Thus, under the applicable statute, the current TPS designation must be terminated.
Haitians with TPS will be required to reapply for Employment Authorization Documents in order to legally work in the United States until the end of the respective termination or extension periods. Further details about this termination for TPS will appear in a Federal Register notice."
The termination of TPS status for Haitians follow the termination of TPS for Nicaraguans announced by the Trump administration earlier this month.
Almost 60,000 Haitians had been granted TPS status. Other countries that have been designated for TPS status include El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Julianne Hing for The Nation reports on the implication of ICE’s announcement last week of Operation Raging Bull. As the initiative's name suggests, the operation was clearly intended as a way of showing tough-on-crime follow-through on the Trump administration’s threats. And the arrests are significant. The Trump administration has clearly focused its law-enforcement resources on cracking down on MS-13. Hing claims that the gang database used by ICE is a weapon that allows ICE officers to indiscriminately round up immigrants of color.
For ICE, the database is the weapon. Labeling immigrants gang members—whether or not they’ve been suspected or charged (let alone convicted)—of any crime is what will keep them from ever being free in the United States again. The stated aim of the operation is supposedly public safety, but upon closer inspection the execution looks a lot like indiscriminate roundups of immigrants of color.