tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/daca-42970/articlesDACA – The Conversation2024-03-08T04:01:43Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2251582024-03-08T04:01:43Z2024-03-08T04:01:43ZBiden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580628/original/file-20240308-24-r50pvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-delivers-the-annual-state-of-the-union-news-photo/2059263399?adppopup=true">Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>President Joe Biden delivered the annual <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/03/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery-2/">State of the Union address</a> on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.</em></p>
<p><em>The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.</em></p>
<p><em>But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.</em> </p>
<p><em>“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.</em></p>
<p><em>Biden’s speech comes as a <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4422273-immigration-overtakes-inflation-top-voter-concern-poll/">rising number of American voters</a> say that <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx">immigration is the country’s biggest problem</a>.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://gould.usc.edu/faculty/profile/jean-lantz-reisz/">Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz</a> answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.</em> </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580622/original/file-20240308-21-t103cg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-arrives-to-deliver-the-state-of-the-news-photo/2067104727?adppopup=true">Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?</h2>
<p>The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221006083/immigration-border-election-presidential">policies at the border</a>. </p>
<p>Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.</p>
<p>But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/record-number-migrant-border-crossings-december-2023/">barbed wire fences</a>. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/24/texas-border-wire-supreme-court/">Border Patrol agents</a> and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants. </p>
<p>Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-warnings-migrant-crime-border-speech/story?id=107691336">“invasion”</a> at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-and-trump-s-dueling-border-visits-will-encapsulate-a-building-election-clash/ar-BB1j5jKy">flow of migration at the border</a>. </p>
<h2>2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?</h2>
<p>Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border. </p>
<p>The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim">border illegally</a>. That law has not changed. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-overruled/#immigration">Courts struck down</a> many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-is-title-42-and-what-does-it-mean-for-immigration-at-the-southern-border">called Title 42</a>. Biden continued that policy <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-title-42-policy-immigration-what-happens-ending-expiration/">until the legal justification for Title 42</a> – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023. </p>
<p>Republicans falsely attribute the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/">surge in undocumented migration</a> to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4414432-house-approves-resolution-denouncing-bidens-open-border-policies/">“open border” policy</a>. There is no such policy. </p>
<p>Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S. </p>
<p>More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/02/the-crisis-at-the-border-a-primer-for-confused-americans.html">their countries</a>, and some people have waited to migrate until <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/border-numbers-fy2023">after the COVID-19 pandemic</a> ended. People who smuggle migrants are also <a href="https://thehill.com/campaign-issues/immigration/3576180-human-smugglers-often-target-migrants-with-misinformation-on-social-media-watchdog/">spreading misinformation</a> to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580236/original/file-20240306-24-y12r2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-walks-with-jason-owens-chief-of-us-news-photo/2041441026?adppopup=true">Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. How much power does the president have over immigration?</h2>
<p>The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws. </p>
<p>For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1103&num=0&edition=prelim">present in the U.S.</a> in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S. </p>
<p>The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/12/29/immigrants-ice-border-deportations-2023/#">deported more than 142,000 immigrants</a> from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year. </p>
<p>But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum. </p>
<p>Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/29/fact-sheet-impact-of-bipartisan-border-agreement-funding-on-border-operations/">Without congressional approval</a>, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580242/original/file-20240306-18-k0ch8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/groups-of-migrants-of-different-nationalities-arrive-at-the-news-photo/2054049040?adppopup=true">Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?</h2>
<p>In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-border-authority/">taking asylum applications</a> when migrant crossings reached a <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-border-bill-aid-02-07-24/h_3263c78238d0d2de96a203fad7fd9e94">certain number</a>. </p>
<p>During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”</p>
<p>That bill would have also provided <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/senate-vote-border-bill-aid-02-07-24/h_3263c78238d0d2de96a203fad7fd9e94">more federal money</a> to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers. </p>
<p>Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said. </p>
<p>“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said. </p>
<p>Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked. </p>
<p>Biden <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-weighs-invoking-executive-authority-stage-border-crackdown-212f/">is now considering</a> using section 212(f) of the <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act">Immigration and Nationality Act</a> to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.</p>
<p>This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-immigration-ban-raises-more-questions-answers-here-s-n1188946">travel ban</a> on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/americas/travel-ban-trump-how-it-works.html">travel ban in 2018</a>. </p>
<p>Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-immigration-ban-raises-more-questions-answers-here-s-n1188946">blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country</a> for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. </p>
<p>Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration bill during his State of the Union.Jean Lantz Reisz, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, USC Immigration Clinic, University of Southern CaliforniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2230722024-02-13T13:21:23Z2024-02-13T13:21:23ZImmigration reform has always been tough, and rarely happens in election years - 4 things to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575094/original/file-20240212-24-rrmn75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Migrants cross the border from Mexico into Texas on Feb. 6, 2024. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/migrants-cross-the-border-to-usa-through-gate-36-and-to-be-news-photo/1983631787?adppopup=true">Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Immigration is already a major polarizing issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Arrests for <a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-crossings-mexico-biden-18ac91ef502e0c5433f74de6cc629b32">illegal border crossings</a> from Mexico reached an all-time high in December 2023, and cities like New York and Chicago are struggling to provide housing and basic services for tens of thousands of <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/04/texas-migrants-new-york-bus-companies-lawsuit/#:%7E:text=As%20of%20Dec.,33%2C600%20migrants%20to%20New%20York.">migrants arriving from Texas</a>. </p>
<p>In early February 2024, a group of senators <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/">proposed new immigration legislation</a> that would have slowed the migrant influx at the border. The bill would have made it harder for migrants to both apply for and receive asylum, which is the legal right to stay in the U.S. because of fear of persecution if they return back home. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-deal-rejected-lankford-immigration-045fdf42d42b26270ee1f5f73e8bc1b0">But the bill</a>, like others proposed in recent years, quickly faltered after Republicans opposed it. </p>
<p>This is far from the first time that Democrats and Republicans have failed to pass legislation that was intended to improve the country’s immigration system. </p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Y1qVRfUAAAAJ&hl=en">scholar of immigration and refugee policy</a>. Here are four key reasons why meaningful immigration policy change has been so difficult to achieve – and why it remains a pipe dream:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wearing dark clothing and jackets reach for and hold bags of bread." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575096/original/file-20240212-20-e4zl2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newly arrived migrants receive a meal from a church in Manhattan on Jan. 24, 2024. According to New York Mayor Eric Adams’ administration, 172,400 migrants have arrived in the city since the spring of 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-mostly-newly-arrived-migrants-receive-an-afternoon-news-photo/1958071905?adppopup=true">Spencer Platt/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Immigration reform has always been hard</h2>
<p>The U.S. has faced major roadblocks every time it has tried to achieve immigration reform. </p>
<p>For decades after World War II, presidents, lawmakers and activists tried and failed to revamp the nation’s immigration system to remove <a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/erika-lee/america-for-americans/9781541672598/?lens=basic-books">racist quotas based on national origin</a>, set in the 1920s, that restricted all but northern and western Europeans from immigrating to the U.S. </p>
<p>Change finally came in 1965, when Congress passed the <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act">Immigration and Nationality Act</a>. This required extensive negotiations. The final bipartisan bargain <a href="https://www.npr.org/2015/10/03/445339838/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-1965-immigration-act">removed racist quotas but appeased those who wanted to restrict immigration</a> by prioritizing new immigrants’ connections to family already in the country – a preference that lawmakers thought would favor Europeans.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691088051/dividing-lines">last big immigration reform</a> happened in 1986, when Congress passed the <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca">Immigration Reform and Control Act</a>. Year after year, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Congressional bills to address the porous border with Mexico and the undocumented immigrant population living in the country went nowhere. After many false starts, an uneasy Left-Right majority finally agreed in 1986 on a package that sanctioned employers who hired undocumented immigrants, provided legal status to roughly 3 million undocumented migrants, created a new farmworker program, and increased border security resources.</p>
<p>For almost four decades, Washington has been stuck in neutral on this issue.</p>
<h2>2. The US is more polarized on immigration than ever before</h2>
<p>Americans have been at odds over how to handle immigration since the nation’s founding. But partisan and ideological polarization over border control and immigrants’ rights <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo221112082.html">is greater today</a> than any other time.</p>
<p>Over the past 20 years, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-politics-of-immigration-9780190235307?cc=us&lang=en&">Democratic and Republican voters</a> and politicians alike became more firmly <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo28424644.html">aligned with rival</a> pro- and anti-immigration rights movements.</p>
<p>In 2008, 46% of Republicans and 39% of Democrats said they thought immigration to the U.S. <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/395882/immigration-views-remain-mixed-highly-partisan.aspx">should be decreased</a>. In 2023, GOP support for decreased immigration soared to 73%, compared with just 18% of Democrats who said they wanted that. Today, Republicans are almost three times as likely as Democrats to see unauthorized immigration as a very big national problem – <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-health-costs-partisan-cooperation-among-the-nations-top-problems/">70% versus 25%</a>.</p>
<p>Despite growing polarization, leaders from both parties have tried a few times in recent decades to work together on bipartisan reform. </p>
<p>In 2006, former President George W. Bush, a Republican, joined Senators Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, John McCain, a member of the GOP, and other lawmakers in a coalition that pushed for comprehensive immigration reform. Like the 1986 reform, their proposal included stronger border security measures, a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants and a new, expansive program for employers to legally host foreign workers. </p>
<p>Right-wing pundits and anti-immigrant activists vigorously mobilized <a href="https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy">against the legislation,</a> and the GOP-controlled House of Representatives killed the bill.</p>
<p>In 2013, a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/24/getting-to-maybe">bipartisan group of politicians called the “Gang of Eight”</a> spearheaded a new reform. Their bill reflected a familiar package: a new path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, more work visas for skilled foreign immigrants, and a guest worker program. The <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530">Senate passed the legislation</a>, but the <a href="https://www.salon.com/2007/06/26/immigration_22/">measure then died</a> in the House. The Republican majority there refused to vote on what they considered an amnesty bill.</p>
<p>Partisan warfare over immigration reached a fevered pitch during the Donald Trump presidency. Liberals, for example, rallied against Trump’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/a-weekend-of-protest-against-trumps-immigration-ban/514953/">ban on immigrants from some Muslim countries</a>, and conservatives fretted over <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-the-migrant-caravan-and-a-manufactured-crisis-at-the-us-border">caravans of migrants crossing into the country</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Kyrsten Sinema wears a red dress and red framed glasses and gestures with her hands, while people stand around her and hold out phones and tape recorders." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575364/original/file-20240213-30-wm3195.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">US Senator Kyrsten Sinema, one of the co-sponsors of the Senate bi-partisan border and immigration bill, speaks to reporters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 5, 2024.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sen-kyrsten-sinema-speaks-to-reporters-at-the-u-s-capitol-news-photo/1988744214?adppopup=true">Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. There’s little bipartisan agreement over what the problem actually is</h2>
<p>Most Americans generally agree that the nation’s immigration system is broken. Yet different political groups cannot agree on what exactly is wrong and how to solve it.</p>
<p>For some Republicans, including former Trump, the problem is lax border control and permissive policies that allow dangerous migrants to enter and stay in the country. Right-wing politicians and commentators, like Tucker Carlson, have exploited these anxieties, warning that large-scale immigration will <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/15/us/replacement-theory-shooting-tucker-carlson.html">“replace” white Americans</a>. Their solution is to militarize the nation’s borders, deport undocumented immigrants living in the country, and make it harder for people to legally stay in the country. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/mobility-socialism-how-anti-immigration-politics-advances-socialism-and-impedes-capitalism">There are also conservatives</a> who think immigration is consistent with the principles of individual liberty, entrepreneurship and national economic growth. They support more visas for highly skilled newcomers, especially those with strong science and technology backgrounds.</p>
<p>Democrats <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/republicans-and-democrats-have-different-top-priorities-for-u-s-immigration-policy/">aligned with the immigrant rights</a> movement believe that the country is obliged to address the humanitarian needs of migrants seeking asylum at the southern border. They argue that millions of undocumented people <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520287266/lives-in-limbo">living in the shadows</a> of American life creates an undemocratic caste system, and they think this can be solved by creating pathways for most undocumented immigrants to get legal permanent residency. </p>
<p>Moderate Democrats <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2024/02/07/kyrsten-sinema-border-bill-impact-arizona-election/72509061007/">advocate tougher restrictions to address migrant surges</a> that overwhelm Border Patrol agents and other officials along the U.S.-Mexican border. Their solutions include hiring thousands of new immigration officers, strengthening physical and technological barriers along the border, and making the asylum program more efficient. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Joe Biden wears dark sunglasses and a suit and walks, in front of men in green uniforms, along a large fence. The sun shines through it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575097/original/file-20240212-16-pkh45o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Joe Biden walks along the U.S.-Mexico border fence in January 2023 in El Paso, Texas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-walks-along-the-us-mexico-border-fence-news-photo/1246095870?adppopup=true">Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Immigration reform is especially messy in a presidential election year</h2>
<p>Presidential election years are fertile ground for politicking on immigrants and borders, but not lasting policy reform.</p>
<p>In 2021, President Joe Biden and his supporters introduced an <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2024/02/07/kyrsten-sinema-border-bill-impact-arizona-election/72509061007/">immigration bill</a> that would offer a pathway to legal residency for nearly all undocumented immigrants. But the measure never gained the 60 votes necessary to win passage in the Senate. </p>
<p>Now, Biden finds himself <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4394262-biden-approval-rating-on-handling-immigration-reaches-all-time-low-poll/">underwater with voters, including Democrats, on immigration</a> and the perceived chaos at the border. </p>
<p>Eager to protect themselves in the 2024 election and to alleviate the headaches that migrant surges at the border present, Biden and other top Democrats temporarily set aside past blueprints for legalizing undocumented people and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/">joined Republican negotiators</a> in advancing one of the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/border-deal-to-cut-illegal-immigration-is-released-after-months-of-talks-26a66211">toughest border security measures</a> in decades. This bill, which the Senate introduced on Feb. 5, 2024, would have dedicated US$20.2 billion to strengthen border security, and it would have made it much harder for immigrants to apply for or receive asylum. </p>
<p>Republican border hawks had long demanded more restrictive immigration rules. But they did not embrace this deal. When Trump eviscerated the legislation, intent on keeping problems at the border as a campaign issue, Republican members of Congress lined up to quickly kill the legislation.</p>
<p>The death of the bipartisan Senate border deal is a triumph of election-year grandstanding over governing. Yet its demise also reflects a much longer trend of ideological conflict and partisan warfare that has made congressional gridlock on immigration reform a defining feature of contemporary American politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223072/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Tichenor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Immigration reform has always been hard to accomplish. As the U.S. enters an election year, bipartisan reform now appears out of reach.Daniel Tichenor, Professor of Political Science, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1903152022-10-11T12:17:32Z2022-10-11T12:17:32ZYoung immigrants are looking to social media to engage in politics and elections – even if they are not eligible to vote<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/488360/original/file-20221005-23-lqzury.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigrant advocates protest near the U.S. Capitol on June 15, 2022 </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/immigration-advocates-rally-to-urge-congress-to-pass-permanent-for-picture-id1241326933">Drew Angerer/Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Immigrants’ political power is on the rise in the United States. </p>
<p>The number of eligible immigrant voters nearly doubled from about 12 million in 2000 to more than <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/02/26/naturalized-citizens-make-up-record-one-in-ten-u-s-eligible-voters-in-2020/">23 million</a> in 2020. </p>
<p>Immigrant voters <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/02/26/u-s-immigrants-are-rising-in-number-but-just-half-are-eligible-to-vote/">tend to be older</a> than U.S.-born voters, but immigrants ages 18 to 37 still made up 20% of all immigrant voters in 2020.</p>
<p>We are a team of scholars and students across disciplines and universities researching immigrant youths’ civic development – and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221103890">we think it’s</a> important to recognize that young immigrants are also playing a key role in galvanizing older immigrants to vote, primarily by connecting with them via social media. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221103890">Our research</a> shows that online sites and apps like Twitter are key for young immigrants – both people who were born outside of the U.S. and those who are second-generation immigrants – as ways to engage in politics. Many young immigrants use social media to follow news in their local communities, as well as in their countries of origin. They also use it to organize protests and encourage others to vote.</p>
<p>This is true even when these young people are not eligible to vote because of their immigration status. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A screenshot from a social made page shows a young female user who posted the words, 'A vote for Trump is a vote against my family, my friends, health care, LGBTQ plus people, people of color, undocumented immigrants, the poor, climate, etc. Vote for Biden friends. Vote trump out." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484724/original/file-20220914-9055-moa09n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young immigrants have been found to use social media to galvanize others in their community to vote.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sara Wilf, Elena Maker Castro and Tania Quiles.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A key issue</h2>
<p>Immigration is a core issue for many voters in the upcoming midterm elections. An August 2022 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/23/midterm-election-preferences-voter-engagement-views-of-campaign-issues/">Pew Research poll</a> found that nearly 50% of registered voters reported immigration was “very important” to them in the November 2022 election.</p>
<p>Some Republican politicians, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and others who are also up for re-election, have focused on immigration in their <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/politics/desantis-gop-base-migrants-massachusetts/index.html">campaigns</a> by pointing to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/number-migrants-crossing-border-hits-another-record-surges-migration-n-rcna34030">record numbers</a> of migrants crossing the U.S. border. Republican politicians have also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/desantis-florida-migrants-marthas-vineyard.html">relocated thousands</a> of migrants to liberal places like Washington, D.C., New York and Massachusetts over the past several months.</p>
<p>President Joe Biden’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-president-biden-sends-immigration-bill-to-congress-as-part-of-his-commitment-to-modernize-our-immigration-system/">plan to revamp</a> the country’s immigration system and provide a path for about 11 million undocumented residents to gain citizenship, meanwhile, remains <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1177/text">stalled in Congress</a>. </p>
<p>Over the past several years, though, young immigrants – people ages 18 to 23 who were born in other countries, or whose parents were – have helped lead national movements to provide a conditional path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants, resulting in the 2021 passage of the <a href="https://iamerica.org/daca#final%20daca%20rule">DREAM Act</a>. This policy <a href="https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-overview">gives millions</a> of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children the right to stay in the country. </p>
<p>The DREAMer movement <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.311">relied heavily</a> on social media to spread information and encourage people to take action. Based on immigrant youths’ prior successes mobilizing their communities for political change, we believe that their online political engagement could have implications for the 2022 midterms.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1323706101217415168"}"></div></p>
<h2>Mobilizing others</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221103890">research study</a> in 2020 explored how immigrant youth ages 18 to 23 used social media to participate in politics. We took 2,300 screenshots of political tweets from January through November 2020, drawing from a sample of 32 young immigrants’ public Twitter feeds that we found through national immigrant youth networks, like <a href="https://unitedwedream.org">United We Dream</a>. </p>
<p>Based on the content of their Twitter profiles and posts, we were confident that they were all actual immigrant youth residing in the U.S. We then contacted all of them through Twitter about the study, and the majority confirmed their age and immigrant status. We went on to analyze the screenshots to identify trends in how youth were politically engaged online. </p>
<p>We also conducted interviews with 11 people from the sample, further confirming that we had recruited youth whose Twitter profiles accurately represented their real identities. Several indicated either in their Twitter profiles and tweets or in the interviews that they were not eligible to vote due to their documentation status.</p>
<p>We found that young immigrants use Twitter to educate their followers about political issues and processes in the U.S. and abroad – and to share both online and in-person opportunities to protest or vote.</p>
<p>These young people appeared to intentionally target their ethnic and regional communities in their social media outreach. </p>
<p>For example, some youth <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221103890">in our June 2022 study</a> called on their followers to translate educational resources on racial justice into different languages to share with their families. </p>
<p>Others provided voter registration guides in multiple languages, alerted followers about political candidates who shared an ethnic or regional identity, or encouraged particular ethnic communities – such as South Asians – to vote. </p>
<p>In interviews, youth also described bringing political conversations from their phones to the dinner table and discussing news they had read online with their parents. </p>
<p>Some participants also shared that they posted on social media with the explicit intention of shifting their family members’ political views. </p>
<p>One person we interviewed in 2020 who had ancestry in the Philippines and Belize noted that he “realized the importance of educating people and having those difficult conversations,” particularly with his family and friends. </p>
<p>Valeria, a college senior originally from Puerto Rico, also explained how Facebook was “the family social media platform” where she raised awareness about political issues. </p>
<p>“The way that I kind of look at it is at least I’m planting a seed, right? I’m planting an idea, at least I’m helping others, at least hear what’s going on,” said Valeria, who also asked to use a pseudonym, in a 2020 interview with our team that was featured in the 2022 study.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A screenshot from a social media page shows a user named Amit Jani encouraging voters who are Asian or Pacifc Islanders to attend an online call for Joe Biden's election" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/484723/original/file-20220914-11002-48cwta.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screenshot from the authors’ study shows a Tweet from a young immigrant in 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sara Wilf, Elena Maker Castro and Tania Quiles</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>From online to offline engagement</h2>
<p>Immigrant youths’ online political engagement reflects larger trends in the U.S. </p>
<p>Approximately 46% of U.S. teens today use the internet “almost constantly,” <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/">compared with</a> just 24% who said the same in 2014. </p>
<p>Alongside this surge in internet use, more young people are using social media to educate others about social and political topics, hold politicians accountable and provide their followers with opportunities to take action through climate and political movements like <a href="https://fridaysforfuture.org">Fridays for Future</a> and <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com">Black Lives Matter</a>.</p>
<p>Online political engagement has important consequences for offline political behaviors. </p>
<p>Indeed, nearly a quarter of U.S. adults report that they have <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/15/23-of-users-in-us-say-social-media-led-them-to-change-views-on-issue-some-cite-black-lives-matter/">changed their views</a> on a political issue because of social media. Online political engagement has also been shown to result in more young people participating <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2013.871318">in protests</a> and encouraging people <a href="https://doi.org/10.3386/w28849">to vote</a>. </p>
<p>Our findings align with <a href="https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/Democratic-Citizenship_Immigrants-Civic-Political-Engagement.pdf">prior research</a> showing that immigrant youth are politically educating and mobilizing their families and community members. </p>
<p>A survey of people who were allowed to stay in the U.S. because of the DREAM Act prior to the 2020 elections found that <a href="https://unitedwedream.org/resources/amid-changes-to-the-daca-program-and-covid-19-daca-recipients-are-fired-up-and-civically-engaged/">nearly 95%</a> of them were planning to encourage family and friends to vote. </p>
<p>Immigrant youths’ online political engagement has several potential implications for the 2022 midterm elections. </p>
<p>First, as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x221103890">our 2022 study</a> found, immigrant youth are using social media to influence their parents’ opinions on political issues like racial justice and teach them how to register to vote. </p>
<p>Because of the large impact immigrant voters may have on the 2022 midterms, <a href="https://www.azmirror.com/blog/new-voter-bloc-of-naturalized-citizens-might-swing-arizona-midterms/">particularly in swing states</a>, immigrant youths’ online political engagement could play a role in shaping the elections’ outcome. </p>
<p><em>Ph.D. students <a href="https://luskin.ucla.edu/person/bethany-murray">Bethany Murray</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E9L2f3AAAAAJ&hl=en">J. Abigail Saavedra</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lamont-Bryant">Lamont Bryant</a>, as well as three undergraduate students, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Kedar-Garzon-Gupta-2229185643">Kedar Garzón Gupta</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaime-garcia-0a1893196/?trk=public_profile_browsemap_profile-result-card_result-card_full-click">Jaime Garcia</a> and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditir19/">Aditi Rudra</a>, and UCLA Professor <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xA4XsTcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Laura Wray-Lake</a> are all members of the team that carried out research for the study highlighted in this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190315/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Wilf receives funding from the UCLA Bedari Kindness Institute for a research study related to this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elena Maker Castro receives funding from the UCLA Bedari Kindness Institute for a research study related to this article. Elena also receives funding from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities to support her graduate research career. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Taina B Quiles receives funding from the Ford Foundation to support her graduate research career. </span></em></p>The number of immigrant voters is on the rise – and research shows that for young immigrants, social media is where they are primarily wading into politics.Sara Wilf, PhD student in social welfare, University of California, Los AngelesElena Maker Castro, Doctoral Candidate, University of California, Los AngelesTaina Quiles, PhD candidate, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1860162022-06-30T20:54:22Z2022-06-30T20:54:22ZSupreme Court’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ ruling puts immigration policy in the hands of voters – as long as elected presidents follow the rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471942/original/file-20220630-5543-xzeo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C41%2C5574%2C3663&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A migrant from Haiti waits with others at a clinic for migrants in Tijuana, Mexico.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/SupremeCourtAsylumWaitinginMexico/14efcaea327c43fdbc163c1c38b84b70/photo?Query=%22remain%20in%20mexico%22&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=129&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Gregory Bull</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21">very last decision of its latest term</a>, the Supreme Court released a major ruling that not only <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/politics/biden-remain-in-mexico-scotus.html">clears a barrier</a> to ending a signature policy of the Trump administration but also signals that the future of immigration policy is in the hands of the electorate.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-954">Biden v. Texas</a>, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to prevent the current president’s rollback of a Trump-era policy that requires asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern land border to be returned to Mexico while their claims were being processed. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf">5-4 decision</a> means that the case will be returned to the lower courts. But it also makes clear that whoever is control of the White House has the power to change directions in immigration policy – even drastic reversals of policy. It follows that presidents can do the same in other substantive legal areas as well, such as civil rights and environmental protection.</p>
<h2>The rights (and wrongs) of remain</h2>
<p>The issue in Biden v. Texas was whether the Biden administration could <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/migrant-protection-protocols">dismantle a Trump administration policy</a> formally known as <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/archive/migrant-protection-protocols-trump-administration">Migrant Protection Protocols</a> but widely referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy.</p>
<p>As part of an array of immigration enforcement measures, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsen-announces-historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration">announced the policy in late 2018</a> in response to numbers of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.</p>
<p>But the Migrant Protection Protocols <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/22/remain-in-mexico-migrant-suicide-attempt">came under scrutiny</a> amid concerns over the <a href="https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/conditions-in-migrant-detention-centers">safety and conditions</a> to which asylum seekers were subjected in camps under the supervision of Mexican authorities. Human Rights Watch <a href="https://www.hrw.org/tag/remain-mexico">found the policy</a> sent “asylum seekers to face risks of kidnapping, extortion, rape, and other abuses in Mexico” while also violating “their right to seek asylum in the United States.”</p>
<p>Yet an attempt by the Biden administration to eliminate the protocols was <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-10806-CV1.pdf">barred by the U.S. Court of Appeals</a> for the Fifth Circuit. The circuit judges found that the Biden administration had violated immigration law requiring the detention of asylum seekers.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court rejected this ruling. In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf">majority opinion</a> written by Chief Justice John Roberts – joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh – the court held that the Biden administration’s decision to terminate the Migrant Protection Protocols did not violate federal immigration law. The state of Texas had argued that ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy violated a provision that every asylum seeker entering the country be returned or detained. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf#page=34">his dissent</a>, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the statute requires mandatory detention of migrants at the border. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf#page=53">dissent expressed</a> the view that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction and that the case should be remanded back to the lower courts.</p>
<h2>Avoid the arbitrary, cease the capricious</h2>
<p>The Supreme Court’s decision means the case will be sent back to the lower court to decide, but with the removal of a major legal obstacle preventing Biden from ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The Supreme Court held that the immigration law does not require mandatory detention of all asylum seekers while their claims are being decided.</p>
<p>But moreover, the court made clear that the president has the discretion to change direction in immigration policy and continue, or end, policies of the previous president.</p>
<p>That might seem self-evident. But it comes after another 5-4 decision penned by Chief Justice Roberts – 2020’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf">Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</a>, which held that a president could not act irrationally in changing immigration policy.</p>
<p>In that decision, the Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-dreamers-sends-a-clear-message-to-the-white-house-you-have-to-tell-the-truth-141099">found that the Trump administration had acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion</a> in rescinding the Obama administration’s <a href="https://www.ice.gov/daca">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a> – or DACA – policy. That policy provided limited legal status and work authorization to undocumented migrants who came to the country as children, so-called Dreamers.</p>
<p>In the court’s view, the Trump administration had not adequately considered the interests of the migrant children in deciding to rescind the policy and had given inconsistent reasons about the basis for the rescission.</p>
<p>That ruling provided fuel for states to challenge the Biden administration when it attempted to roll back some Trump-era policies. For example, Arizona, along with other states, challenged Biden’s attempt to abandon a proposed rule change by the previous administration that would tighten the requirements on low- and moderate-income noncitizens seeking to come to the U.S. Although the Supreme Court initially accepted review of the case, it ultimately <a href="https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/06/breaking-news-suprme-court-dismisses-state-efforts-to-defend-trump-administrations-proposed-public-c.html">dismissed the appeal and declined to decide the merits</a>.</p>
<p>In the end, the Supreme Court’s decision in Biden v. Texas stands for the simple proposition that presidential elections matter when it comes to government policy. As long as an incumbent administration follows the rules – including rational deliberation of the policy choices in front of it – it can, the Supreme Court has said, change immigration policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the last decision of the term, the Supreme Court cleared a barrier for the Biden administration to end a Trump-era policy returning asylum seekers arriving in the US to camps in Mexico.Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1575492021-03-23T12:30:51Z2021-03-23T12:30:51ZCitizenship for the ‘Dreamers’? 6 essential reads on DACA and immigration reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390962/original/file-20210322-19-1lmbaxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C41%2C5568%2C3659&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The American Dream and Promise Act, also known as House Resolution 6, would create a path to citizenship for immigrant 'Dreamers' – but it has to pass the Senate first. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/speaker-of-the-house-nancy-pelosi-and-senate-democratic-news-photo/1181972855?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The United States could eventually grant citizenship to roughly 2.5 million undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6">American Dream and Promise Act of 2021</a>, which passed in the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives on March 18, would give a group known as the “Dreamers” permanent resident status for 10 years. They could then apply to be naturalized as U.S. citizens.</p>
<p>Only nine House Republicans voted for the bill, so in its current form it is unlikely to pass the Senate, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. For over a decade, all congressional efforts to protect Dreamers <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/dream-act-dies-in-senate-046573">have died in the Senate</a>.</p>
<p>In 2012, President Barack Obama bypassed Congress with an executive order to help this group of immigrants. The <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/08/15/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-who-can-be-considered">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a>, or DACA, granted the temporary right to live, study and work to about 800,000 undocumented immigrants age 30 or younger who had come to the U.S. before age 16.</p>
<p>President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/546423550/trump-signals-end-to-daca-calls-on-congress-to-act">rescinded DACA in fall 2017</a>, asking Congress to resolve the Dreamers’ legal limbo by March 2018. Congress hasn’t passed any legislation to resolve Dreamers’ status; the American Dream and Promise Act is an effort to attempt that. </p>
<p>Here’s some key background and expert analysis on the “Dreamers” and DACA as the debate advances to the Senate.</p>
<h2>1. DACA’s results</h2>
<p>Researchers who evaluated DACA found the program benefited both Dreamers and the United States. </p>
<p>Wayne Cornelius, a professor emeritus of U.S.-Mexican relations at the University of California, San Diego, <a href="https://theconversation.com/post-daca-how-congress-can-replace-obamas-program-and-make-it-even-better-83547">led a research team that interviewed dozens of DACA recipients in 2014</a>. He found that work permits enabled them to get higher-paying jobs. </p>
<p>“This made college more affordable and increased their tax contributions. DACA [also encouraged] them to invest more in their education because they knew legal employment would be available when they completed their degree,” Cornelius wrote in 2017.</p>
<p>A survey conducted earlier that year of some 3,000 DACA recipients found that 97% were currently employed or enrolled in school, and many had started their own businesses. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Line of several dozen young adults, some with young children, standing in the sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390964/original/file-20210322-15-tp7djm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young immigrants line up to apply for DACA on Aug. 15, 2012, in Los Angeles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hundreds-of-people-line-up-to-receive-assitance-in-filing-news-photo/150318934?adppopup=true">Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But DACA had “significant limitations,” according to Cornelius. Because their work authorization had to be renewed every two years, for example, some employers were reluctant to hire Dreamers. </p>
<h2>2. Undocumented stress</h2>
<p>Still, research found, DACA enabled recipients “to further their education and obtain jobs and health insurance,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-daca-affected-the-mental-health-of-undocumented-young-adults-83341">wrote migration specialists Elizabeth Aranda and Elizabeth Vaquera</a> in September 2017.</p>
<p>The program gave the Dreamers “peace of mind – something that, until then, was unfamiliar to them.”</p>
<h2>3. DACA and the wall</h2>
<p>Nearly 80% of DACA recipients came from Mexico. So when the Trump administration in September 2017 set DACA protections to expire within six months, the decision affected Mexico, too.</p>
<p>“Ending DACA exposes 618,342 undocumented young Mexicans” to deportation, wrote <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-trump-be-holding-dreamers-hostage-to-make-mexico-pay-for-his-border-wall-82727">political scientist Luis Gómez Romero</a>. </p>
<p>Gómez Romero said the DACA decision could be read as “a power play in Trump’s ongoing battle with the government of Mexico” over its refusal to pay for a border wall.</p>
<h2>4. Congressional battles</h2>
<p>By early 2018, with DACA soon to expire, Congress was in <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-path-to-citizenship-for-1-8-million-will-leave-out-nearly-half-of-all-dreamers-90899">a “scramble for a solution,”</a> according to Kevin Johnson, a dean and professor of Chicana/o studies at the University of California, Davis. That month, a congressional showdown over the Dreamers closed the federal government for 69 hours.</p>
<p>While “some conservatives have balked at the idea of giving ‘amnesty’ to any lawbreakers,” he wrote, some progressives found DACA too narrow. </p>
<p>According to the Migration Policy Initiative, DACA excluded about 1 million unauthorized immigrants who met most criteria for DACA but had not completed their education, had committed a crime or feared applying to DACA because of worry their undocumented parents could be deported.</p>
<p>Trump reentered the fray in January 2018 with a proposed path to legalization for 1.8 million Dreamers. The trade-off for siding with Democrats: Congress had to fund his U.S.-Mexico border wall. </p>
<p>That proposal, too, failed.</p>
<h2>5. Supreme Court decisions</h2>
<p>The Dreamers’ plight has forced the Supreme Court to get involved on several occasions. </p>
<p>In 2017 the court issued an injunction on Trump’s termination of the program, allowing DACA recipients to renew their protected status for another two-year period while other lawsuits proceeded. In June 2020, the court ruled the Trump administration could not actually dismantle DACA because it had not provided adequate justification for doing so.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Group of young people hold up signs rendering 'Home is Here' and 'Here to Stay' with Supreme Court in background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390963/original/file-20210322-15-1lhkn8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dreamers celebrate the Supreme Court’s DACA decision on June 18, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dreamers-and-daca-supporters-rally-outside-of-the-u-s-news-photo/1220896140?adppopup=true">Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That gave the Dreamers another respite, but DACA remained in danger because the 2020 ruling “was not about whether the president of the United States has the authority to rescind DACA,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-dreamers-sends-a-clear-message-to-the-white-house-you-have-to-tell-the-truth-141099">wrote political scientist Morgan Marietta of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell</a>. “All of the parties involved agreed that he does.”</p>
<p>The case merely confirmed that a president cannot lie about the rationale underlying his executive orders. </p>
<p>The justices’ narrow decision left open the “possibility that the administration could try to rescind DACA at a later date,” wrote Marietta.</p>
<h2>6. Biden and immigration reform</h2>
<p>Joe Biden’s election forestalled that. His administration is pushing Congress to undertake comprehensive immigration reform that would create pathways to citizenship not only for the Dreamers but also for other undocumented immigrants, including farmworkers.</p>
<p>Any immigration overhaul must tackle a <a href="https://theconversation.com/severed-families-raided-workplaces-and-a-climate-of-fear-assessing-trumps-immigration-crackdown-147344">host of new challenges created over the past four years</a>, according to Miranda Cady Hallett, a Central America immigration expert at the University of Dayton.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Trump made over 400 changes to immigration policy, by Hallett’s tally, including barring immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries and separating families at the border. </p>
<p>While many presidents have deported large numbers of undocumented immigrants, Trump’s immigration enforcement was “more random and punitive,” writes Hallett. It “vastly increas[ed] criminal prosecutions for immigration-related offenses and remov[ed] people who have been in the U.S. longer.” </p>
<p>That includes the Dreamers. </p>
<p>After a decade of legal battles and political threats, the Dreamers aren’t so young anymore. Many in the original group of 800,000 are pushing 40.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The House passed a bill creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. Here’s what you need to know about the Dreamers and DACA.Catesby Holmes, International Editor | Politics Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1570422021-03-22T12:26:57Z2021-03-22T12:26:57ZBiden immigration overhaul would reunite families split up by deportation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390503/original/file-20210318-13-f8h1x0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=51%2C8%2C5699%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A mother who was deported to Mexico reconnects with her daughters at a family reunification event put on at the U.S.-Mexico border, November 2017. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/cristal-brayan-ramirez-cervantes-hugs-lucia-cervantes-while-news-photo/875978220?adppopup=true">Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/Implications-of-Immigration-Enforcement-Activities-for-the-Well-Being-of-Children-in-Immigrant-Families.pdf">Hundreds of thousands of immigrant families have been separated by deportation</a> from the United States, in many cases with a parent on one side of the border and children on the other, according to estimates by the Urban Policy Institute and Migration Policy Institute. Reunification is a priority in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/us/politics/house-democrats-biden-immigration.html">President Joe Biden’s proposed immigration overhaul</a> and in bills that both the <a href="https://lindasanchez.house.gov/sites/lindasanchez.house.gov/files/2021.02.18%20US%20Citizenship%20Act%20Bill%20Text%20-%20SIGNED.pdf">House</a> and <a href="https://www.menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/USCitizenshipAct2021BillText.pdf">Senate</a> will debate in coming weeks. </p>
<p>Both bills have provisions to preserve “family unity.” These include giving immigration judges increased discretion in deportation cases and allowing the secretary of homeland security or attorney general to waive deportation orders or allow deported parents of U.S. citizen children to return to the U.S.</p>
<p>Under U.S. immigration law, any noncitizen – including legal permanent residents – may be <a href="https://theconversation.com/deported-veterans-stranded-far-from-home-after-years-of-military-service-press-biden-to-bring-them-back-154320">deported for committing a serious crime</a>. Undocumented immigrants may be removed simply for being in the country without a valid visa and banned for 10 years or more.</p>
<p>Since 2016, I have coordinated a digital storytelling project called “<a href="http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/">Humanizing Deportation</a>,” which has published personal narratives, in audiovisual form, from over 250 migrants. It is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.855">the world’s largest qualitative database</a> on the human consequences of deportation and other harsh penalties of U.S. immigration law. </p>
<p>Our research shows that deportation doesn’t just hurt the migrants who get deported – it also does serious harm to <a href="https://globalmigration.ucdavis.edu/deported-mothers-mental-health-and-family-separation">their families, especially children</a>. </p>
<p>Here are two such stories, told by the separated families themselves. Our project does not verify migrants’ stories, and what you read here is based on their recollection of events.</p>
<h2>Tania’s story</h2>
<p>Tania Mendoza arrived in California in 1989 at age 3, brought by her parents from Mexico, undocumented, to escape poverty. </p>
<p>In 2010 Tania was arrested after <a href="http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/2018/11/05/115a-dreaming-in-the-shadows/">a domestic dispute with a guy she was dating</a>. Though no charges were filed and Tania had no criminal record, she was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deported. She was 24 and a mother.</p>
<p>Just two years later, Tania would have qualified as an undocumented childhood arrival, or “Dreamer,” and been protected from deportation by the Obama-era <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-daca.html">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a>. </p>
<p>Her toddler daughter remained with the child’s father in Los Angeles. </p>
<p>Tania recalls her daughter watching her get detained by the L.A. Police Department: “That was the last time I ever saw her,” <a href="http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/2018/11/05/115b-feelings-are-feelings-and-family-is-family-part-ii/">she told us tearfully</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Black-and-white image of a woman standing on a beach with a large fence in the background" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390655/original/file-20210319-19-yyzehx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tania Mendoza on the Mexican side of the border wall with California. Mendoza was deported to Mexico, which she left at age 3, in 2010.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.leopoldopena.com/">Leopoldo Peña</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Tania says separation from her daughter was the hardest part of life after deportation. Since she shared custody with the father, she could not take her daughter with her to Mexico without his consent. </p>
<p>Mother and daughter stayed in touch by phone until 2016, when the father – to whom she was not married – cut off all contact. </p>
<p>“He took her phone away and just decided she was better off without me,” Tania said. “So my heart broke even more.” </p>
<p>After two years without contact, a family court judge awarded Tania phone visitation rights – the best proxy for enforcing the existing shared custody agreement due to Tania’s removal from the country. </p>
<p>Tania has communicated regularly with her daughter since but has not seen her, except on a screen, for over 10 years. </p>
<p>Nowadays, she says, getting a simple text like “Hi, Mom, how was your day?” fills Tania with feelings of hope. </p>
<h2>Losing mom or dad</h2>
<p>Family separation made headlines during the Trump administration, when Central American families seeking asylum were separated at the border. <a href="https://www.voanews.com/usa/immigration/obstacles-persist-reuniting-families-separated-us-mexico-border">About 500 families remain separated</a> today. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Group crosses the Brooklyn Bridge holding signs that promote 'Reunited Families' and an American flag" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390504/original/file-20210318-17-oufmkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People march in New York City against the Trump administration’s family separation policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/thousands-of-people-march-in-support-of-families-separated-news-photo/988040988?adppopup=true">Spencer Platt/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But family separation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/15/immigration-boy-reform-obama-deportations-families-separated">occurred during the Obama administration</a>, too. Between 2009 and 2016, the U.S. expelled an <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/table39#">average of 383,000 immigrants per year</a>, according to Department of Homeland Security data. That surpasses Trump, whose government deported 325,000 annually over the first three years of his administration. George W. Bush’s administration averaged 252,000 deportations a year. </p>
<p>So many <a href="http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/about-the-project/">deported immigrants who’ve shared their stories with us</a> tell of the deep and enduring damage inflicted when their removal meant that their children lost their mom or dad. </p>
<p>Parents are <a href="https://theconversation.com/deported-twice-man-struggles-to-help-his-family-survive-90734">rarely able to provide or care for their families from abroad</a>. And the trauma of losing a loved one for an extended, indefinite period can be significant, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ftra0000177">especially for children</a>. Psychologists have observed <a href="https://theconversation.com/living-on-the-edge-are-americas-deportation-laws-traumatising-immigrants-74663">anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and other symptoms commonly associated with post-traumatic stress disorder</a> in children who’ve lost a parent to deportation.</p>
<p>Why don’t deported parents just take the kids with them? As Tania’s story shows, this is not always practical, or even possible. </p>
<h2>Rosa and Zuri</h2>
<p>When Rosa Ortega’s husband was taken to an immigration detention center in San Bernardino, California, in 2017, and then deported to his native Peru, it was a devastating ordeal for the couple’s three young children. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://humanizandoladeportacion.ucdavis.edu/en/2017/12/04/steppin-in/">story Rosa and her daughter Zuri recorded for us that same year</a>, Rosa says she didn’t know how to explain to the children why their father was taken from their house in handcuffs, nor answer their questions about how long he would be gone.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Small girl in striped shirt hugs a man in a red jumpsuit, in an institutional setting" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/390506/original/file-20210318-19-30475v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A family visit at the ICE-run Adelanto immigration detention center in San Bernardino County, Calif.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-immigrant-detainee-holds-his-children-during-a-family-news-photo/450371271?adppopup=true">John Moore/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rosa’s eldest child, Zuri, a teenager, had to step in and assume responsibilities usually handled by her father. </p>
<p>“Instead of him being there on [my sister’s] first day of kindergarten, it was me,” Zuri told us.</p>
<p>She said losing her father had forced her to “mature and grow up” and that she deals with “more than what you are supposed to” because she is “filling in that role as a parent but still being a child at the same time.” </p>
<p>Zuri is among the thousands of children who just might get to see their dad again under Biden’s immigration reform plan. </p>
<p>But it has to pass the House and Senate first.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert McKee Irwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When a child loses mom or dad to deportation, the harm can be severe and lasting. New immigration bills in the House and Senate seek to avoid family separation and allow deported parents back home.Robert McKee Irwin, Deputy Director, Global Migration Center, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1456632020-10-21T08:18:48Z2020-10-21T08:18:48ZHow much of Barack Obama’s legacy has Donald Trump rolled back?<p>Throughout Donald Trump’s first term in office, the US president has harked back to the Obama years. From blasting the “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41587428">horrible</a>” Iran nuclear deal to blaming Barack Obama’s administration for the “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/4/20/21227903/trump-blames-obama-coronavirus">obsolete, broken system</a>” that Trump claims has hindered the US response to the COVID-19 crisis, he’s used his predecessor as a constant foil. </p>
<p>During his 2016 campaign for the White House, Trump committed himself to rolling back much of the Obama legacy. Now, his 2020 election opponent is Obama’s former vice president, Joe Biden. This ensures that the choice American voters make at the ballot box in November will either reinforce Obama’s legacy – or rebut it once again. </p>
<p>It’s not always easy to pinpoint the exact legacy a president leaves behind, particularly in the short term. Sometimes, political legacies that appear immediately important can diminish in significance over time. Or those that initially seemed flat – such as <a href="https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/1134889.html">that of Harry Truman</a> – come to be seen in a much more positive light as the years pass.</p>
<p>For Obama, the successes he enjoyed and disappointments he endured after his election in 2008 were often a consequence of the political environment in which he operated. Once Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, the scope for legislative action dramatically diminished and his administration had to find other ways to get things done. Such routes included executive actions as well as presidential memoranda. </p>
<p>During the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/23/trump-pledged-to-reverse-obamas-executive-orders-heres-how-well-past-presidents-have-fulfilled-that-pledge/">declared</a> that he would “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Yet, while executive actions are simpler to reverse than legislative achievements, there are still <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/03/trump-says-hell-cancel-obamas-unconstitutional-executive-actions-its-not-that-easy/">procedural obstacles to overcome</a> if a predecessor’s actions are to be rolled back. And these obstacles were not always given due attention by the Trump administration.</p>
<p>Nor was America’s institutional fragmentation brushed away with a new broom once Trump entered the White House. Like Obama, he enjoyed two years when his party controlled both houses of Congress – until <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-midterm-results-six-key-issues-and-what-they-mean-for-the-countrys-uncertain-future-106467">the Republicans lost their majority</a> in the House of Representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections. This limited Trump’s capacity to continue unpicking his predecessor’s achievements. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-obama-v-trump.html">a new book</a>, we’ve looked at what kind of legacy Obama left as well as what success Trump has had in trying to roll it back. We’ve found that while some aspects of the Obama legacy were vulnerable to reversal, other areas proved more resilient. The stand-out legacies of the Obama years would become a direction of travel, if not always an end point. </p>
<p>Here we will look at four key areas: healthcare, immigration, climate policy and racial justice. </p>
<h2>Healthcare</h2>
<p>The standout domestic policy legacy of the Obama administration was the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. Enacted in early spring 2010, ACA was the most significant policy reform of the US healthcare system since the 1960s. While the new law built on existing programmes such as Medicare and Medicaid, rather than replacing them, it significantly expanded the government’s role in funding healthcare and the regulation of the private health insurance market. </p>
<p>At the signing ceremony for the bill, Biden was caught on microphone describing the moment as a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/23/joe-biden-obama-big-fucking-deal-overheard">big fucking deal</a>”. Republicans agreed with this sentiment and spent much of the remainder of Obama’s presidency declaring their aim to repeal the law. After taking control of the House in January 2011, Republicans passed multiple bills to repeal all or parts of the ACA. But while Obama remained in office, with a power to veto these bills, this remained symbolic rather than <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/obama-vetoes-obamacare-repeal-bill/index.html">substantive politics</a>. </p>
<p>Yet that symbolism mattered. It meant that the <a href="https://politicalquarterly.blog/2018/09/03/is-obamacare-really-doomed/">law remained contested</a> and that Republican controlled state-level governments, such as <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-texas/texas-rejects-key-provisions-of-obamas-health-law-idUSBRE8680O220120709">Texas</a> with its large uninsured population, did not cooperate with implementing key aspects of Obamacare. When Republicans took control of the White House and both chambers of Congress in January 2017, the outlook for the preservation of Obamacare looked bleak.</p>
<p>But despite <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/08/08/trump-i-will-repeal-and-replace-obamacare.html">Trump’s promises</a> to “repeal and replace” the ACA, it is still the law of the land as his first term draws to a close. In 2017, the Republican-led House <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/politics/health-care-bill-vote.html">passed the American Health Care Act</a>, which would have repealed large parts of the ACA. Although the Republican leadership bent all the Senate’s norms to breaking point, <a href="https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/walking-dead-republican-effort-repeal-obamacare">no equivalent legislation passed in the upper house</a> and Obamacare remained. </p>
<p>In fact, the Republican efforts to undo the law seem to have been central to a growth in popularity for the ACA. Throughout Obama’s time in office, a plurality of Americans said that they viewed the law unfavourably, but that <a href="https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all">shifted once</a> it came under sustained threat and reports emerged of how many people <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/senate-health-care-bill-republican.html?mcubz=3">would lose insurance</a> should it be repealed. </p>
<p>It also became clear that the sheer complexity of the law made it difficult to unravel if Republicans were to keep in place its popular aspects, notably protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, the new president’s <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/trump-health-care-complicated/index.html">manifest frustration</a> at the complex details of health policy made him an ineffective broker in negotiations. </p>
<p>Efforts have continued throughout the Trump presidency to undermine the application of Obamacare. The administration is backing a <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-california-v-texas-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging-the-aca/">court case that will be heard by the Supreme Court</a> a few days after the November election that could bring the ACA crashing down. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-supreme-court-strikes-down-the-affordable-care-act-trumps-health-care-order-is-not-enough-to-replace-it-147159">If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, Trump's health care order is not enough to replace it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile, healthcare remains a key battleground in the 2020 election, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. Confounding logic, Trump claims that Biden would threaten protections for Americans with pre-existing health conditions and that these protections will only be preserved if he is re-elected. But these protections exist <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/suit-challenging-aca-legally-suspect-but-threatens-loss-of-coverage-for-tens-of">as a result of the ACA</a>, which the Justice Department is trying to bring down.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1313073591974592512"}"></div></p>
<p>A Biden victory along with Democratic control of both houses of Congress would likely see moves to build on the ACA. <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all">Medicare for All</a>, a single-payer government funded healthcare plan championed by the senator Bernie Sanders, is not on the Biden agenda. However, it’s possible his administration could introduce measures such as a <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/10-key-questions-on-public-option-proposals/">public insurance option</a> to compete with private insurers in the individual insurance market. In this context, conservatives are probably right to see the public option as a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/health/policy/13plan.html">Trojan horse</a> that could open the door to greater government involvement in the provision of American healthcare. </p>
<p>All this means the ACA is an Obama legacy that has proved more resilient than expected when Trump took office in 2016. </p>
<h2>Immigration</h2>
<p>Obama’s legacy in other areas was more mixed and relied less on legislative action than efforts to use the executive power of the presidency. A good example was immigration. The Obama administration’s promise of comprehensive reform didn’t really come <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/obama-congress-immigration-reform-gop-opposition">close to making it</a> through Congress, even when the Democrats controlled both chambers. </p>
<p>Obama did use his executive power to introduce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy in mid-2012. This provided temporary legal status to so-called “Dreamers”, people who had been brought into the US without documentation as children and who were deemed illegal despite many having <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/13/who-daca-dreamers-and-how-many-here/333045002/">lived their lives as Americans</a>. A subsequent <a href="https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-reform-and-executive-actions/dapa-and-expanded-daca-programs/">executive action</a>, which would have granted legal status to a much wider group, never came into force as it was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html">thwarted by the courts</a> in 2016. This left DACA as Obama’s major legacy in terms of immigration policy. </p>
<p>As an executive order it should have been relatively straightforward for the Trump administration to reverse. This seemed especially likely given how Trump had so remorselessly used his <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37225020">antagonism to “illegal immigration” as a campaign tool</a> in 2016. </p>
<p>Trump did in fact express some ambiguous sentiments about the plight of the Dreamers, but in September 2017 he labelled DACA an “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">amnesty first approach</a>” and declared that the protections the programme offered would start to be rolled back in six months. Yet in the summer of 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s effort to reverse DACA was so fumbled as to fail to meet the <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/daca-supreme-court-explainer/index.html">relatively straightforward</a> administrative procedure required to do. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-dreamers-sends-a-clear-message-to-the-white-house-you-have-to-tell-the-truth-141099">Supreme Court ruling on Dreamers sends a clear message to the White House: You have to tell the truth</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This makes the 2020 election even more critical – especially for those people living in America who don’t have a vote. The Trump administration would surely try again to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/us/politics/trump-daca.html">rollback DACA</a> if re-elected and given a second chance to do so. Meanwhile, a Biden administration would likely try to codify the protection for Dreamers through legislation, and <a href="https://joebiden.com/immigration/#">pursue further reform</a> to offer a path to legal status for others living in the US without documentation. </p>
<h2>Climate crisis</h2>
<p>When it comes to action on climate change, Obama’s legacy was less tangible, and certainly more complex. The myriad layers involved in creating, executing and defending an agenda to combat the climate crisis made for inevitable problems to implement reform. This, combined with the heft of opposition, fake news and political baggage that accompanied the issue, made for a series of challenges, some victories and many disappointments for the Obama administration and those eager to embed a green government agenda during his two terms in office. </p>
<p>Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-decision-to-quit-the-paris-agreement-may-be-his-worst-business-deal-yet-78780">decision to withdraw</a> the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, which Obama’s administration signed in 2015, is often held up as an example of how he rolled back Obama’s legacy. But other reforms showed with clarity the push-pull nature of policy from the Obama to Trump administrations. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jP55meWlLt4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP), which set out to curb US greenhouse gas emissions, is one such story. Unveiled by Obama in 2015, the CPP was groundbreaking in a range of ways. It demonstrated that the world’s leading superpower acknowledged the existence of human-made climate change, and offered an initiative to reduce carbon emissions back to 2005 levels by 2030. A significant step forward in itself, the CPP looked to set a bar for other nations and give a warning to big polluters. So far, so environmentally good.</p>
<p>But the CPP quickly caused consternation with governors in dozens of states, who lost no time in taking legal action against a plan they viewed as a serious threat to the economy. By early 2016, <a href="https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-suit-against-the-clean-power-plan-explained-20234">24 states were challenging</a> the CPP in court, resulting in a Supreme Court decision to issue a <a href="https://energypost.eu/obamas-clean-power-plan-wounded-dead-yet/">judicial stay</a> on Obama’s plan.</p>
<p>When Trump arrived in the White House, the path to undermining the plan was already paved. In March 2017, he signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/">executive order</a> requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carry out a review of the CPP. By this time, the agency was headed by former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, known for his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change">rejection of the climate crisis</a> as a man-made phenomenon. </p>
<p>In June 2017, the US formally withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, and four months later, the EPA announced that the CPP would be repealed. These two developments were directly connected, as the CPP was a route via which the US would have met its modest Paris emissions targets. </p>
<p>With both Obama-era legacies unpicked, the Trump administration moved towards implementing its own, far more polluter-friendly option, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-affordable-clean-energy-rule-ensuring-reliable-diversified-energy">Affordable Clean Energy</a> plan. In keeping with his repeal and replace approach to Obama policy, Trump’s plan did not place limits on greenhouse gases, an aim that was central to the CPP. Instead it opted for an “inside the fenceline” approach, imposing less than stringent restrictions on individual power plants. </p>
<p>By chance, the earliest possible date that the US can legally withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is November 4, 2020, one day after the presidential election. As part of his <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/">US$2 trillion plan</a> for Climate Change and Environmental Justice, Biden has vowed that the US will re-engage with the Paris deal. This is significant for environmental reasons but also as a demonstration to external observers that a post-Trump America will take its international obligations seriously. </p>
<p>In direct contrast to the Trump environmental agenda, Biden has pledged that his presidency would move America, the world’s largest polluting country, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/biden-promises-100-clean-energy-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-1">towards 100% green energy use by 2050</a>. Trump’s plan offers an America First-focused alternative, prioritising US energy independence <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/trump-epa-calls-for-dirty-power-climate-crisis-accelerates-clean-power-plan-affordable-clean-energy-rule">via further use of fossil fuels</a>. On the environment, as with many other policy areas, the polarised options on offer reflect the state of the nation.</p>
<h2>Racial justice</h2>
<p>There is one aspect of the Obama legacy that cannot be undone, and that is the moment he sealed victory in 2008. Obama ran, however unrealistically, on a post-racial election ticket in 2008, and the world watched as America elected a young, highly educated, politically progressive black man for the first time as leader. </p>
<p>In the early years of his administration, issues not overtly related to race remained at the forefront of the political agenda. Nonetheless, the 2008 economic collapse and the nation’s ongoing healthcare crisis further laid bare the disproportionate systemic challenges that Americans of colour continued to face. Throughout his time in office, Obama was criticised by those on the left of “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fbook-party%2fwp%2f2016%2f02%2f18%2fthe-racial-procrastination-of-barack-obama%2f">racial procrastination</a>”.</p>
<p>Inevitably, a moment would come when Obama would have to confront the race issue. It arrived via the 2013 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fnational%2fanger-flows-at-acquittal-of-george-zimmerman-in-death-of-trayvon-martin%2f2013%2f07%2f14%2fe1a1216a-ec98-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html">acquittal of charges against George Zimmerman</a>, a neighbourhood watch volunteer, for the fatal shooting of unarmed black high-school student, Trayvon Martin. After Zimmerman’s acquittal, Obama offered unusually personal reflections, stating that Martin <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin">“could have been my son</a>”. He was lauded for his empathy and simultaneously criticised for stoking racial tensions. </p>
<p>The moment, combined with the lengthy list of other Americans of colour on the receiving end of police violence, often fatally, ignited the Black Lives Matter movement. This presented Obama with an ever-narrowing tightrope to walk as the calls for racial justice grew louder in a nation where not everyone had come to terms with a president whose heritage included Kenya as well as Kansas. </p>
<p>As it turned out, America opted in 2016 to turn its back on the progress embodied by the first black man in the White House. Instead, as the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put it, the US elected the nation’s “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/">first white president</a>”. Coates argued that Trump’s victory was in no small part predicated on negating the racial legacy of his predecessor. Obama may have broken the glass ceiling, an achievement that no-one could undo, but a determined successor could substantially paper over those cracks – and Trump made every effort to do so. </p>
<p>Once in office, Trump did not pretend to prioritise issues around racial justice – and his administration took repeated steps to reverse the proactive measures started during the Obama administration to call out institutional racism. Notably, in the context of the demands of the Black Lives Matters protests, Trump’s attorney-general, Jeff Sessions, stopped <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/jeff-sessions-blind-eye/521946/">investigations into local police forces</a> that had begun in 2015 in the wake of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police shooting of Michael Brown in the city the previous year. </p>
<p>As protests grew in response to the police killing of George Floyd, in May 2020, Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/30/21275588/trump-policing-policies-doj-george-floyd-protests">drew widespread criticism</a> for adding to already boiling tensions via divisive words.</p>
<p>November 2020 will present voters with very different visions of how to manage race relations in this divided era. A president Biden would be unlikely to pursue the more radical demands of Black Lives Matters activists such as defunding the police, but there would probably be a change in tone from Trump’s <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/30/politics/proud-boys-trump-debate-trnd/index.html">confrontational language</a> and a reintroduction of Justice Department investigations into local police forces.</p>
<p>The issues we’ve focused on here are a way to illustrate the strands of Obama’s legacy that Trump was so eager to dismantle. There are numerous further examples which show how Trump was determined to pursue a process of “de-Obamafication”. With the assistance of Republicans in Congress, and the agency heads he appointed, Trump succeeded in some, although far from all, of his rollback plans. </p>
<p>As voters head to the polls in November, they are faced with starkly different candidate choices. The US will have the opportunity to add another coat of whitewash over eight years of progressive efforts by its first black president, or reward the Biden half of the 2008 ticket – thereby reinforcing much of the Obama legacy. The stakes are high and the consequences of the choice facing voters is profound.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated to correct the point that George Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch volunteer, not a police officer.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145663/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From healthcare, to the environment, immigration and racial justice, which areas of Barack Obama’s legacy were the most vulnerable – and most resilient – during Donald Trump’s first term?Clodagh Harrington, Associate Professor of American Politics, De Montfort UniversityAlex Waddan, Associate Professor in American Politics and American Foreign Policy, University of LeicesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1444772020-09-14T11:50:59Z2020-09-14T11:50:59ZIt’s still a conservative Supreme Court, even after recent liberal decisions – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357317/original/file-20200909-18-1y3hkrb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C25%2C5687%2C3677&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">DACA supporters rally at the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 18, 2020, after the court rejected the Trump administration's push to end DACA. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dreamers-and-daca-supporters-rally-outside-of-the-u-s-news-photo/1220896140?adppopup=true">Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The new Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday in October, <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-the-supreme-court-starts-on-the-first-monday-in-october">a date set more than 100 years ago by Congress</a>. As expected, the court’s upcoming docket will include <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2020/">some politically controversial cases</a> – as did the term that ended in June. Less expected, that previous term featured some notable liberal victories – in cases about immigration, homosexuality and abortion. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the last Supreme Court term was far from a liberal triumph, and for several reasons.</p>
<p>First, as commentators have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/12/think-this-was-liberal-term-supreme-court-you-probably-missed-some-cases/">noted</a>, the term also saw many conservative decisions. And as one court observer has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/opinion/supreme-court-roberts-religion.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage">argued</a>, the liberal decisions were made on narrow legal grounds, with limited scope and future applicability, whereas the conservative ones were broader.</p>
<p><a href="https://law.uoregon.edu/people/directory/ofer">As a scholar who specializes in the Constitution and the courts</a>, I see another reason why the last term was not a liberal triumph, and why the Roberts court remains a bastion of conservatism: the types of decisions that the court made. </p>
<p>Simply put, some Supreme Court decisions are enduring, while others are fleeting and easily changed. </p>
<h2>Different kinds of decisions</h2>
<p>The Supreme Court decisions that have the greatest impact on our governments and our laws are rulings that find violations of the Constitution, called “constitutional invalidations.” </p>
<p>When the court declares that some government action – a law or an executive order – is unconstitutional, that action must stop. Neither Congress nor the states can do anything to change this result, except through a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to attain (<a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-v">because it requires two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, plus the consent of three-quarters of the states</a>). </p>
<p>Notable historic examples of constitutional invalidations include <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/">Brown v. Board of Education (1954)</a>, which ended racial segregation in public schools; <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/">Reynolds v. Sims (1964)</a>, which announced the celebrated one-person-one-vote principle; or Roe v. Wade (1973), the abortion rights ruling which, despite enormous public opposition, is still with us.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chief Justice John Roberts." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357320/original/file-20200909-20-1v2v3ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, center, provided the crucial fifth vote for decisions seen as liberal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-departs-the-senate-news-photo/1204294954?adppopup=true">Mario Tama/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But most Supreme Court decisions do not declare constitutional violations. Most decisions either reject claims of constitutional violations, or else engage in statutory (as opposed to constitutional) interpretation – that is, they simply determine what a federal law requires in cases where that question is legally contested. </p>
<p>Unlike constitutional invalidations, the consequences of these other decisions are relatively easy to change.</p>
<p>First, the government can always stop doing what it has been doing, even if the court declared it has been acting constitutionally. And second, Congress can always amend or repeal the laws it has passed if it disagrees with the court’s interpretation of these laws.</p>
<p>The distinction between constitutional invalidations and other decisions therefore marks the difference between the most consequential exercises of Supreme Court power and decisions that are far less significant because they are more amenable to change by the other branches of government.</p>
<h2>The liberal decisions</h2>
<p>This difference shows why the recent Supreme Court term was far from a liberal triumph.</p>
<p>Two of the three principal decisions touted as liberal victories are <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf">the reinstatement of DACA</a> – a program allowing people brought to the U.S. illegally as children to avoid deportation, which the Trump administration <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">revoked in 2017</a> – and the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf">prohibition on employment discrimination against homosexuals or transgender individuals</a>. The decisions in both cases involved statutory interpretations, meaning they can be easily overriden. </p>
<p>The DACA decision rejected the claim that the government’s revocation of DACA violated the Constitution, ruling only that the revocation was carried out in a an arbitrary and capricious manner that violated a federal statute. </p>
<p>Either Congress or the Trump administration could therefore end DACA – the administration simply by following different, less arbitrary procedures. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it, “[T]he only practical consequence of the court’s decision…appears to be some delay.”</p>
<p>The decision providing protection from employment discrimination for gay and transgender people was also based on statutory interpretation. The justices found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided remedies against such discrimination. Congress could therefore remove these protections by amending the Civil Rights Act – though it seems <a href="https://www.prri.org/research/broad-support-for-lgbt-rights/">unlikely to do so</a>.</p>
<p>The third ruling celebrated by Democrats – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf">striking down a Louisiana statute</a> that threatened to leave the state with a single abortion clinic – actually did find a constitutional violation. This 5-4 decision is therefore not subjected to legislative override. </p>
<p>On closer look, however, the case may actually undermine constitutional protections for abortion. The decision was based on a recent precedent which invalidated a similar statute from Texas merely <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf">four years earlier</a>. But Chief Justice Roberts, who cast the fifth and crucial vote in last term’s case, made clear he was willing to <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/john-roberts-abortion-june-medical.html">weaken that precedent in the future</a>. </p>
<h2>The conservative decisions</h2>
<p>By contrast, the three big conservative victories from the court’s last term involved two groundbreaking constitutional invalidations. </p>
<p>One constitutional invalidation weakened the independence of federal administrative agencies, a longstanding conservative ambition. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – which was established in 2010 to protect American consumers in the financial markets – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_new_bq7d.pdf">violated the Constitution</a>. </p>
<p>The decision made that agency – and theoretically others like it – more vulnerable to political pressure from the White House. </p>
<p>In a second major 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf">declared it unconstitutional</a> for states seeking the separation of church and state to refuse government scholarships to pupils of private religious schools. This is a big victory for the religious right, which has long sought public funding for religious institutions. </p>
<p>Since these are constitutional invalidations, nothing short of a constitutional amendment – or a future change of heart at the Supreme Court – can undo these two decisions. </p>
<p>In a third decision, the court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf">ruled against</a> a Sri Lankan asylum-seeker who was ordered to leave the U.S. and was not allowed to appeal his deportation to the federal courts. A federal Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20190307136">found</a> the unavailability of an appeal to be unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the asylum seeker had no constitutional right to appeal.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman holding a sign that says " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357462/original/file-20200910-18-1lcgtl3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In one case, the court gave the Trump administration a victory in an anti-immigration policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/small-group-of-activists-from-bamn-protest-outside-the-u-s-news-photo/1204736670?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The decision was not only a big practical win for the Trump administration, which has made the <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-announces-major-crackdown-on-asylum-seekers">crackdown on asylum seekers one of its main policies</a>. It also deprived liberals of what had been a significant migrant rights victory at the lower court – significant, because it came in the form of a constitutional invalidation, which the Supreme Court has now reversed. </p>
<h2>A staunchly conservative court</h2>
<p>In short, when evaluating the court’s performance, it is crucial to distinguish between different types of decisions. The most formidable and enduring are those that find constitutional violations. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>That is why the Roberts court is so staunchly conservative: In pivotal areas – from the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf">right to bear arms</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">campaign finance</a> to <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-908.pdf">affirmative action</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf">religious freedom</a> – conservative victories often come in the form of enduring constitutional invalidations. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, important liberal decisions are often easy to circumvent – and unlikely to last.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144477/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ofer Raban does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Those who say the Supreme Court’s last term was a liberal success fail to understand that the types of decisions they see as victories are fleeting triumphs that will not endure.Ofer Raban, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1410992020-06-18T19:35:31Z2020-06-18T19:35:31ZSupreme Court ruling on Dreamers sends a clear message to the White House: You have to tell the truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342820/original/file-20200618-41200-19no40t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3600%2C2441&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters celebrate the Supreme Court ruling.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Supreme-Court-Immigration/12eefed671404c9c8633b53b60faec28/2/0">AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it came down to it, the fate of 700,000 immigrants brought to U.S. as children hung on a simple question: Does the White House have to tell the whole truth in justifying its move to deport them?</p>
<p>On June 18, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/trump-daca-supreme-court.html">Supreme Court said “yes.”</a></p>
<p>In a 5-to-4 decision that came as a major blow to President Trump, the justices ruled that the administration could not proceed with plans to dismantle <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548819221/trump-administration-rescinds-daca-calls-on-congress-to-replace-it">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a>, or DACA. The Obama-era provision halted the deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. at an early age, often referred to as Dreamers. Its provisions allow for those young people to live and work in the U.S. although doesn’t provide a path to citizenship.</p>
<p>DACA will now stay in place…for the time being.</p>
<p>In ruling against the White House, the Supreme Court did hold out the possibility that the administration could try to rescind DACA at a later date. Only next time, they would have to provide adequate reasoning for doing so.</p>
<p>Writing <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf">the majority opinion</a>, Chief Justice John Roberts explained: “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern.” He continued: “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” And it is here the Supreme Court found the administration wanting.</p>
<p>Trump responded by tweeting that the ruling was “horrible & politically charged.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1273633632742191106"}"></div></p>
<p>From the beginning, this case was not about whether the president of the United States has the authority to rescind DACA. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=14">All of the parties involved agreed that he does</a>. Rather, the question was whether under U.S. law, the executive branch has to give complete and accurate reasons for its actions. </p>
<p>From my perspective as a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/A-Citizens-Guide-to-the-Constitution-and-the-Supreme-Court-Constitutional/Marietta/p/book/9780415843812">scholar of constitutional politics</a>, the fact that the Supreme Court has now answered “yes” has broad ramifications. It could usher in a new era in which the Supreme Court and many lower courts judge the evasion or candor of public officials. </p>
<p>A “no,” on the other hand, would have given carte blanche to the executive branch to avoid public accountability and offer less-than-full reasons for doing what it does. </p>
<h2>The truth?</h2>
<p>The core of the case became clear during oral arguments in November.</p>
<p>Advocates for DACA recipients and the government both seemed to agree that the court’s role was only to determine if the procedure the Trump administration followed was adequate under congressional laws, especially the <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/the-legal-flaw-with-ditching-daca-215579">Administrative Procedure Act</a>. The case was about procedure, not policy.</p>
<p>Perhaps the key exchange in November’s arguments was a fascinating <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-587">exchange</a> between Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=62">and Ted Olson</a>, the advocate for DACA recipients:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Justice Kavanaugh: Do you agree that the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA?</p>
<p>Mr. Olson: Yes.</p>
<p>Justice Kavanaugh: Okay. So the question then comes down to the explanation.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The whole truth?</h2>
<p>Trump’s position on Dreamers has shifted over time. In the early days of his presidency, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference/">told reporters</a> that he would show “great heart” over the issue, adding that there were some “absolutely incredible kids” in the program. </p>
<p>But by the fall of 2019, Trump was portraying Dreamers in a different light, suggesting that “some are very tough, hardened criminals.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1194219655717642240"}"></div></p>
<p>Different explanations for his decision to rescind DACA were heard by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The administration argued that DACA was unconstitutional to begin with, on the grounds that the executive order from President Obama <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/09/05/daca.talking.points%5B8%5D.pdf">exceeded executive authority</a>.</p>
<p>Advocates for the DACA recipients offered alternative explanations. They argued that the White House is willing to accept the high costs to so many current residents in order to achieve their political goal of reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Or as Justice Sonia Sotomayor phrased it, this is a “political decision” that “is not about the law; this is about our <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=32">choice to destroy lives</a>.”</p>
<p>Others <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-press-secretary-says-trump-will-now-use-dreamers-as-bargaining-chip-for-border-wall-fbb7f8d9e18f/">said</a> the administration was using DACA as a bargaining chip for other legislative goals, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/trump-proposal-daca-wall.html">funding for the border wall</a>.</p>
<p>It all came down to whether the justices believed that the administration was doing this for partisan and policy reasons. And if so, was the White House legally bound to be honest in explaining why?</p>
<p>Justice Elena Kagan, who joined Justice Roberts in the majority decision along with the three other liberal justices, asked the key question back in November’s arguments: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=82">“Well, what would an adequate explanation look like?”</a></p>
<p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the answer should be, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=90">“We don’t like DACA and we’re taking responsibility for that, instead of trying to put the blame on the law</a>.”</p>
<h2>And nothing but?</h2>
<p>Ahead of the June 18 ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer asked an important question for the legacy of the ruling: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=83">“What’s the point?”</a> In other words, why make the administration say what everyone already knows – that it opposes DACA and is not moved by the human cost of deportation?</p>
<p>The answer came from Michael Mongan, advocate for the University of California, where <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-takes-daca-fight-supreme-court">around 1,700 Dreamers study</a>. He argued in November that the reason to reject the Trump administation’s actions is that “they have not made a decision that actually takes ownership of a discretionary choice to end this policy … so the public could <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=87">hold them accountable for the choice they’ve made</a>.”</p>
<p>The point is democratic accountability. If the executive branch is forced to make full and honest admissions, then voters can judge elected officials accurately.</p>
<p>In regard to the effects on DACA recipients, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the administration “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=31">should have considered these matters but did not</a>.”</p>
<h2>…so help us all!</h2>
<p>The DACA ruling was anticipated by an earlier precedent established by Chief Justice Roberts.</p>
<p>In 2019, when the Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/roberts-rules-the-2-most-important-supreme-court-decisions-this-year-were-about-fair-elections-and-the-chief-justice-119708">rejected the Trump administration’s effort</a> to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, Roberts argued that if the executive branch advances dishonest arguments, the court would not accept them. The phrases Roberts used included “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=31">pretext</a>,” “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=33">contrived</a>” and “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=32">a story that does not match the explanation</a>.” In common language, that means lying.</p>
<p>Roberts’ assertion in the census case met with deep disdain from Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=35">who wrote</a>: “For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”</p>
<p>In his dissent to the DACA ruling, Thomas describes the decision as “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=40">mystifying</a>.” In deciding to rule on, in Roberts’ words, “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=13">whether the agency action was adequately explained</a>,” Thomas argues that the decision “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=41">has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong – the political branches</a>.” </p>
<p>The point has been even more bluntly made by Justice Samuel Alito. Having <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=75">said in the census case</a> that the federal judiciary had “no authority to stick its nose into” whether reasons given by the administration were the “only reasons,” he followed the DACA ruling with a one-page dissent stating simply, “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf#page=66">our constitutional system is not supposed to work that way</a>.”</p>
<p>With this decision, Justice Roberts has extended his ruling on the census, demanding executive candor regarding DACA as well. The long-term legacy of this case may be that the Supreme Court led by John Roberts has now become an arbiter of public honesty.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-daca-decision-isnt-just-about-dreamers-its-about-whether-the-white-house-has-to-tell-the-truth-129214">an article originally published</a> on Jan. 15.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a 5-to-4 decision, SCOTUS delivered a major blow to Trump and opened the doors to the court being an arbiter of public honestyMorgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1292142020-01-15T13:54:20Z2020-01-15T13:54:20ZSupreme Court DACA decision isn’t just about Dreamers – it’s about whether the White House has to tell the truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309282/original/file-20200109-80137-1gi5yb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C40%2C5336%2C3487&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigration rights advocates rally outside Supreme Court.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/plaintiffs-come-out-of-court-as-immigration-rights-news-photo/1181924331?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fate of 700,000 people facing deportation may hang on a new question facing the U.S. Supreme Court: Is the White House legally obligated to tell the whole truth when justifying its actions? </p>
<p>In November, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/776556916/daca-recipients-look-to-supreme-court-for-hope">justices heard arguments</a> over the administration’s decision to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548819221/trump-administration-rescinds-daca-calls-on-congress-to-replace-it">rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a>, or DACA. This Obama-era provision halted the deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. at an early age, often referred to as Dreamers. A ruling is likely to come late this spring.</p>
<p>The case in front of the court is not about whether the president of the United States has the authority to rescind DACA. All of the parties involved agree that he does. The actual question reflects the current politics of what has been called the <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/05/fact-checking-cant-do-much-when-peoples-dueling-facts-are-driven-by-values-instead-of-knowledge/">post-fact era</a>: Under American law does the executive branch have to give complete and accurate reasons for its actions? </p>
<p>From my perspective as a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/A-Citizens-Guide-to-the-Constitution-and-the-Supreme-Court-Constitutional/Marietta/p/book/9780415843812">scholar of constitutional politics</a>, this is a provocative question with broad ramifications. If the answer is “yes,” it could usher in a new era in which the Supreme Court and many lower courts judge the evasion or candor of public officials. A “no” could give carte blanche to the executive branch to avoid public accountability and offer less-than-full reasons for doing what it does. </p>
<h2>The truth?</h2>
<p>The core of the case became clear during oral arguments in November.</p>
<p>Advocates for DACA recipients and the government both seemed to agree that the court’s role is only to determine if the procedure the Trump administration followed was adequate under congressional laws, especially the <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/the-legal-flaw-with-ditching-daca-215579">Administrative Procedure Act</a>. The case is about procedure, not policy.</p>
<p>Perhaps the key exchange in a fascinating set of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-587">arguments</a> occurred when Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=62">framed the situation bluntly to Ted Olson</a>, the advocate for DACA recipients:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Do you agree that the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA?</p>
<p>MR. OLSON: Yes.</p>
<p>JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. So the question then comes down to the explanation.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The whole truth?</h2>
<p>Trump’s position on Dreamers has shifted over time. In the early days of his presidency, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference/">told reporters</a> that he would show “great heart” over the issue, adding that there were some “absolutely incredible kids” in the program. </p>
<p>But by the fall of 2019, Trump was portraying Dreamers in a different light, suggesting that “some are very tough, hardened criminals.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1194219655717642240"}"></div></p>
<p>Different explanations for his decision to rescind DACA were heard by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The administration argued that DACA was unconstitutional to begin with, on the grounds that the executive order from President Obama <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/09/05/daca.talking.points%5B8%5D.pdf">exceeded executive authority</a>.</p>
<p>Advocates for the DACA recipients offered alternative explanations. They argued that the White House is willing to accept the high costs to so many current residents in order to achieve their political goal of reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Or as Justice Sonia Sotomayor phrased it, this is a “political decision” that “is not about the law; this is about our <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=32">choice to destroy lives</a>.”</p>
<p>Others <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-press-secretary-says-trump-will-now-use-dreamers-as-bargaining-chip-for-border-wall-fbb7f8d9e18f/">have said</a> the administration is using DACA as a bargaining chip for other legislative goals, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/trump-proposal-daca-wall.html">funding for the border wall</a>.</p>
<p>If the administration is doing this for partisan and policy reasons, whether DACA is constitutional or not, are they legally bound to be honest in explaining why?</p>
<p>Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps the most likely of the four liberal justices to join a conservative majority, asked the key question: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=82">“Well, what would an adequate explanation look like?”</a></p>
<p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the answer should be, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=90">“We don’t like DACA and we’re taking responsibility for that, instead of trying to put the blame on the law</a>.”</p>
<h2>And nothing but?</h2>
<p>Justice Stephen Breyer asked an important question for the legacy of the ruling: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=83">“What’s the point?”</a> In other words, why make the administration say what everyone already knows – that it opposes DACA and is not moved by the human cost of deportation?</p>
<p>The answer came from Michael Mongan, advocate for the University of California where <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-takes-daca-fight-supreme-court">around 1,700 Dreamers study</a>. He argued that the reason to reject the Trump administation’s actions is that “they have not made a decision that actually takes ownership of a discretionary choice to end this policy … so the public could <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=87">hold them accountable for the choice they’ve made</a>.”</p>
<p>The point is democratic accountability. If the executive branch is forced to make full and honest admissions, then voters can judge elected officials accurately.</p>
<h2>…so, help us Chief Justice Roberts</h2>
<p>In their deliberations on whether the administration has to be fully forthcoming in explaining its actions, the justices have a recent precedent established by Chief Justice John Roberts.</p>
<p>Last year when the Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/roberts-rules-the-2-most-important-supreme-court-decisions-this-year-were-about-fair-elections-and-the-chief-justice-119708">rejected the Trump administration’s effort</a> to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, Roberts argued that if the executive branch advances dishonest arguments, the court would not accept them. The phrases Roberts used included “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=31">pretext</a>,” “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=33">contrived</a>,” and “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=32">a story that does not match the explanation</a>.” In common language, that means lying.</p>
<p>Roberts’ assertion in the census case met with deep disdain from Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=35">who wrote</a>: “For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”</p>
<p>The point was put even more bluntly by Justice Samuel Alito, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=75">who wrote</a> that the federal judiciary had “no authority to stick its nose into” whether reasons given by the administration were the “only reasons” or the “real reasons.”</p>
<p>DACA advocates are now asking Justice Roberts to extend his ruling on the census case to encompass a broad demand for executive candor. The long-term legacy of the case may be whether the Supreme Court led by John Roberts agrees to become an arbiter of public honesty.</p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The question facing justices isn’t whether the president had the authority to rescind DACA. Rather, it is: Was he honest in his reasons why?Morgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1274172019-11-20T14:01:24Z2019-11-20T14:01:24ZAn economist’s guide to watching the Atlanta 2020 presidential debate: 3 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302690/original/file-20191120-547-1jerxzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Media and others prepare the stage for the Democratic presidential debate in Atlanta.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Amis</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The top candidates vying to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-the-november-debate-start-time-candidates-topics-watch-free-live-stream-online-tv-channel/">will soon take the stage</a> in Atlanta for their fifth televised debate. </p>
<p>With 10 people and only two hours to discuss dozens of complicated issues, viewers may have a hard time keeping up as candidates <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/31/democratic-debate-results-takeaways-1441786">wade into the weeds</a> of their pet policy proposals. </p>
<p>Fortunately, our scholars – who have written <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/2020-us-presidential-election-38597">dozens of articles on the key issues</a> of the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, as well as <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-1860-and-1968-can-teach-america-about-the-2020-presidential-election-121294">quite</a> a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-dark-money-5-questions-answered-118310">few</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-african-american-reparations-explained-114124">obscure</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/pell-grants-are-getting-their-due-in-the-2020-campaign-125116">ones</a> – have you covered. </p>
<p>Here are three economic issues almost certain to come up in the Nov. 20 debate, along with a story from our archive that provides some context to help you evaluate what the candidates say.</p>
<h2>Health care’s high price</h2>
<p>Voters say health care <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx">is the top issue heading into 2020</a> – especially among Democrats. So it’s hardly a surprise that the topic <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/15/20914415/democratic-debates-health-care-issues">has dominated</a> the last four debates and will almost certainly be a hot topic tonight.</p>
<p>Several of the Democratic candidates, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, <a href="https://theconversation.com/medicare-for-all-could-be-cheaper-than-you-think-81883">are proposing wholesale changes</a> to the U.S. system of health care. How to pay for “Medicare for All” – <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-financing-plan/index.html">without raising taxes</a> on the middle class – has been a sticking point for the more ambitious plans. </p>
<p>Gerald Friedman, an economist at University of Massachusetts Amherst, has crunched the numbers on several different versions of a single-payer health care system and estimates a full-scale plan could cost as much as US$40 trillion over a decade. </p>
<p>But there’s an easier and cheaper way to get to Medicare for all, he argues: Simply <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-us-could-afford-medicare-for-all-124462">expand the existing Medicare program to everyone</a>. </p>
<p>Medicare’s “limited scope, skimpy benefits and cost-sharing keep costs low,” he writes, yet “it provides meaningful protection against the potentially crippling cost of accident or illness.”</p>
<h2>The economics of Dreamers</h2>
<p>Immigration is <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx">another issue of importance</a> to Democratic voters and one that’s been frequently on the lips of their candidates. Debate moderators from The Washington Post and MSNBC are likely to bring up a recent Supreme Court hearing involving an Obama-era program. </p>
<p>The court <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/what-happens-daca-holders-if-supreme-court-allows-trump-end-n1081891">heard arguments</a> over whether Trump can end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/daca-42970">DACA, program</a>. DACA allowed hundreds of thousands of young adults who were brought to the U.S. as children but lacked legal status – often referred to as Dreamers – to work and study without fear of deportation. </p>
<p>The hearing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-administration-tells-supreme-court-it-owns-termination-of-daca-program/2019/11/12/2ac4f4ea-0545-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html">focused on whether the president has the right to terminate</a> the program. CUNY sociology professor Amy Hsin, however, believes it’s important to assess the economic impact of Dreamers, who, according to her analysis, <a href="https://theconversation.com/daca-isnt-just-about-social-justice-legalizing-dreamers-makes-economic-sense-too-90603">promote growth and lift wages</a>. </p>
<p>“Overall, we estimate that the increases in productivity under the DREAM Act would raise the United States GDP by $15.2 billion and significantly increase tax revenue,” writes Hsin, who’s also an economist. </p>
<h2>Trade and farmers</h2>
<p>U.S. trade policy has been an important economic topic ever since Trump launched his trade war against China nearly two years ago. It’s also among the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/new_poll_shows_health_care_is_voters_top_concern.html">top concerns on voters’ minds</a>.</p>
<p>Yet, compared with health care and immigration, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/15/20914415/democratic-debates-health-care-issues">it hasn’t actually come up much</a> in the Democratic debates. With “phase one” of a trade deal with China reportedly close – and the costs borne by American companies and consumers rising – that may change tonight.</p>
<p>As Iowa State University scholars Wendong Zhang, Lulu Rodriguez and Shuyang Qu explain, farmers in particular <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-costs-factbox/factbox-from-phone-makers-to-farmers-the-toll-of-trumps-trade-wars-idUSKCN1VE00B">have suffered</a> as a result of the trade war. At the same time, Democratic candidates gearing up for the Iowa caucuses – the first nominating contest in the primary election season, held in February – <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/10/10/768635489/farmers-sticking-by-trump-even-as-trade-wars-bite">have struggled to win</a> the support of farm country.</p>
<p>So Zhang, Rodriguez and Qu <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-midwest-farmers-hurt-by-the-u-s-china-trade-war-still-support-trump-126303">surveyed corn and soybean farmers</a> in the Midwest to learn why. They found that despite the mounting costs of Chinese tariffs, farmers still back the president.</p>
<p>As an Illinois farmer told them, “The Chinese do not play by the rules… They cancel shipment orders that are not in their favor. They continue to steal our patents. Only President Trump has tried to stop these unfair trade practices.”</p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Health care, immigration and trade have been hot topics during the campaign and are likely to come up during the fifth Democratic debate.Bryan Keogh, Managing EditorNicole Zelniker, Editorial Researcher, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1268902019-11-15T13:28:04Z2019-11-15T13:28:04ZProposed asylum fees are part of a bid to make immigrants to the US fund their own red tape<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301339/original/file-20191112-178532-sd71vp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Like making applicants wait in Mexico, fees could discourage asylum seekers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Mexico-US-Asylum-Seekers/44834339facf45e7b58146b3717fd253/30/0">AP Photo/Fernando Llano</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/14/2019-24366/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-fee-schedule-and-changes-to-certain-other-immigration">Trump administration</a> wants to make people fleeing persecution in their home countries pay for something they’ve long gotten for free: the right to apply for asylum in the United States. </p>
<p>As an immigration attorney and a law professor who has <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/profile/sarah-r-sherman-stokes/">represented people seeking asylum for over a decade</a>, I believe this change, which could go into effect as soon as mid-December following a monthlong comment period, would be not just cruel but also unusual.</p>
<p>At present, only <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/asylum-application-fees/index.php">Iran, Australia and Fiji</a> charge fees to would-be asylum-seekers. </p>
<h2>Fees for everything</h2>
<p>Making immigrants escaping harm and persecution shoulder the cost of processing their paperwork is in line with other trends in U.S. immigration law over the last several decades. <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34040.html">Fees for everything</a> from green cards to naturalization are not only common but increasingly costly and mandatory.</p>
<p>“You must submit the correct fees or we will reject your form,” <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/fees">U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services</a>, the Department of Homeland Security agency that oversees these applications, warns on its website. It <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/budget-planning-performance">relies primarily on revenue from these fees</a> to cover its entire budget.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-24366.pdf">proposed rule</a> would make applying for asylum, which has always been free, cost US$50. While that might not seem like much, asylum seekers do not initially have work authorization, and many, if not most, have fled their home countries with just the clothes on their backs.</p>
<p>In my experience, charging a fee would create a significant barrier for people who flee to the United States to escape trauma and persecution. I’m also concerned that the government plans to make no exceptions. Without any possibility of a fee waiver, those who can’t pay this fee would be unable to seek asylum.</p>
<p>In addition to introducing an asylum application fee, the <a href="https://www.fragomen.com/insights/alerts/uscis-proposes-significant-changes-immigration-benefits-fee-structure">government wants to hike</a> the cost of other immigration petitions and applications by <a href="https://www.aila.org/advo-media/agency-liaison/submit-feedback-notices-requests-for-comment/advance-copy-uscis-proposed-rule-with-adjustments">as much as 532%</a>. Most proposed increases are much smaller than that, and fees for a few services would decline slightly.</p>
<p>The Trump administration says it would use the additional revenue generated to help <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-seeks-to-hike-fees-for-immigration-applications-and-impose-first-ever-asylum-charge/">fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services</a>, a government agency that processes immigration applications, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another agency that handles enforcement actions.</p>
<p><iframe id="8qlei" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8qlei/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Established practice</h2>
<p>Immigrants who have suffered past persecution, or who fear future persecution, on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group may <a href="https://theconversation.com/refugee-or-migrant-sometimes-the-line-is-blurred-79700">qualify for asylum</a>. The process can take months or years. The nation’s <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/about-office">immigration courts</a> currently have <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog">a backlog of more than 1 million cases</a>. </p>
<p>President Donald Trump often denigrates the asylum system and asylum applicants. </p>
<p>“People want to come in. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-border-04-05-19/index.html">They shouldn’t be coming in</a>,” he has said, telling asylum-seekers to “turn around.” He has also called the asylum system a “<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4790668/president-trump-mocks-asylum-seekers-calls-program-scam">scam</a>.”</p>
<p>Yet the United States is bound by both domestic and international law to provide protection to those fleeing persecution.</p>
<p>The U.S. is a signatory of United Nations treaties forged in <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolStatusOfRefugees.aspx">1951 and 1967</a> that spell out the <a href="https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/">rights of refugees</a> and asylum-seekers. <a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/united-states-immigration-and-refugee-law-1921-1980">Immigration directives</a> issued and laws passed after <a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust">millions of Jews</a>, <a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/genocide-of-european-roma-gypsies-1939-1945">Roma</a> and others perished during the Holocaust established frameworks and systems for asylum applications and processes.</p>
<p>In short, the nation has legal obligations to allow noncitizens to seek asylum and to vet and process those cases in accordance with domestic and international laws.</p>
<p>The U.S. asylum rules and regulations on the books originated in 1974 and were <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim">refined in 1980</a>. Asylum law has evolved since then, explicitly without fees – even as fees became routine for other immigration applications. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/30/most-migration-us-costs-money-theres-reason-asylum-doesnt/">rationale for keeping it that way is simple</a>: The ability to pay should never stand in the way of refugees and asylum-seekers obtaining the protection to which they are legally entitled. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/273881/original/file-20190510-183089-1pg6sin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unable to find asylum elsewhere, dozens of Jewish refugees spent months trying to disembark at a Latin American port until the Dutch government let them land on Curacao in the Caribbean in 1942.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-I-ANT-APHS339619-WWII-So-America-Cen-/baeb10c907e94f5a8f679d15b550e4a4/457/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Immigration tolls</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, fees for other kinds of immigration applications have been rising for years, becoming <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/3/12/18260770/immigration-fee-filing-trump-budget">increasingly onerous</a>.</p>
<p>Applying for naturalization, the process by which immigrants with legal status become citizens, cost <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/pressrelease/feehistory_020304.pdf">$35 in 1985</a> – the equivalent of $83 today after accounting for inflation. But the price tag for that same application is now <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/n-400">$640</a> – eight times as much.</p>
<p>Under changes proposed in November 2019, <a href="https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/USCIS-Raises-Service-Costs-564828361.html">naturalization fees</a> would nearly double to $1,170.</p>
<p><a href="https://citizenpath.com/faq/cost-become-us-citizen/">Waivers are available</a> in some cases. But as a result of this sticker shock, many longtime lawful permanent residents – that is, immigrants with green cards – <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11660853/immigrants-seek-stability-of-u-s-citizenship-but-cost-is-often-a-barrier">can’t afford to become citizens</a> despite their eligibility, interest and strong ties to this country through their families, businesses, religious engagement and community involvement.</p>
<p>While some immigration lawyers, like those at <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/current-students/jd-student-resources/experiential-learning/clinics/immigrants-rights-human-trafficking-clinic/">our clinic</a> at Boston University School of Law, represent clients <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-attorneys-represent-immigrants-for-free-99734">for free</a>, such services are scarce. <a href="https://personalfinance.costhelper.com/immigration-attorney.html">Lawyers’ fees</a>, therefore, can add to the burden as well.</p>
<h2>What happens next</h2>
<p>Are asylum fees inevitable? Not necessarily.</p>
<p>The proposed changes are subject to official rule-making procedures, scheduled to last 30 days. Implementation could be delayed or blocked, however, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/4/30/18523990/trump-asylum-border-new">by lawsuits</a> filed on behalf of immigrants by advocacy groups. </p>
<p>Likewise, many of the other obstacles the Trump administration has placed in the paths of asylum-seekers, such as forcing them to <a href="https://psmag.com/news/trump-immigration-victory-what-will-it-mean-for-asylum-seekers">wait in Mexico</a> for their hearings and instructing authorities responsible for screening applicants to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/us-asylum-screeners-to-take-more-confrontational-approach-as-trump-aims-to-turn-more-migrants-away-at-the-border/2019/05/07/3b15e076-70de-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html">become more confrontational</a> during preliminary interviews, might not withstand court challenges. </p>
<p>Through it all, one thing is clear. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/01/asylum-seekers-leave-everything-behind-theres-no-way-they-can-pay-trumps-fee/">Most asylum-seekers come with nothing</a>. What little savings they have are often used to pay for their journey to the United States and their basic needs upon arrival. </p>
<p>If they are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and are fortunate enough to have the opportunity and ability to <a href="https://www.aboutbail.com/pages/how-immigration-bail-bonds-work">get out on bail</a>, any funds they have remaining are quickly depleted.</p>
<p>Making it harder for asylum-seekers to access protection is sure to leave many in dire straits.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/charging-asylum-application-fees-is-the-latest-way-the-us-could-make-immigrants-pay-for-its-red-tape-116404">May 13, 2019</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah R. Sherman-Stokes is affiliated with the Boston University School of Law Immigrants' Rights and Human Trafficking Program which provides free legal services to asylum seekers and noncitizens facing deportation. </span></em></p>Fees for everything from green cards to naturalization are not only common, but increasingly costly and mandatory.Sarah R. Sherman-Stokes, Lecturer and Clinical Instructor of Law; Associate Director of the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Clinic, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1268922019-11-12T19:20:44Z2019-11-12T19:20:44ZDACA argued at the Supreme Court: 6 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301362/original/file-20191112-178525-1r8ckri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People rally outside the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard in the DACA case on Nov. 12.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Supreme-Court-Immigration/880613bc44b545ceb3bde29df9204638/7/0">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The future remains uncertain for a group of young people who were brought from other countries to the U.S. as children without legal authorization.</p>
<p>Currently, these young people are protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. This Obama-era program shields <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/6/16431524/daca-how-many">around 700,000 to 800,000 people</a> from deportation. On Nov. 12, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/supreme-court-dreamers.html">the Supreme Court heard arguments</a> on the Trump administration’s decision to end the program. </p>
<p>The hearing involves three separate cases challenging the Trump administration, brought by <a href="https://www.nilc.org/2019/06/28/scotus-grants-cert-in-daca-cases/">six New York DACA recipients and the advocacy organization Make the Road New York</a>, <a href="https://www.naacp.org/latest/federal-court-naacp-case-restores-daca/">the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People</a> and <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/12/trump-threatens-daca-youth-why-we-sued-janet-napolitano-column/2562708001/">the University of California</a>.</p>
<p>President Donald Trump first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">announced he would</a> rescind DACA in 2017. However, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling/second-u-s-judge-blocks-trump-administration-from-ending-daca-program-idUSKCN1FX2TJ">lower court</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/daca-injunction-what-a-federal-judges-ruling-means-for-dreamers/2018/01/10/ecb5d492-f60c-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html">rulings</a> have blocked the administration from ending the program.</p>
<p>Here is a roundup of archival stories to help you follow along.</p>
<h2>1. DACA’s terms and conditions</h2>
<p>DACA came with a long list of terms and conditions. For example, to apply you had to be a certain age and meet certain educational requirements.</p>
<p>Immigration scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-johnson-322147">Kevin Johnson</a> of the University of California, Davis, points out DACA offered protection for only about 1.8 million of the estimated 3.6 million people who were brought to the U.S. as children. </p>
<p>Of those 1.8 million who were eligible, only about 800,000 <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-path-to-citizenship-for-1-8-million-will-leave-out-nearly-half-of-all-dreamers-90899">actually applied and received protection through DACA</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-230" class="tc-infographic" height="575px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/230/0383290ac53a9bb85bf4290bcbe95349d1676be3/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>2. DACA doesn’t cover unaccompanied minors</h2>
<p>It’s important to point out that DACA also does not apply to “unaccompanied minors.” You may have heard the term used especially in 2014, when unprecedented numbers of children traveling alone were arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico. Generally, these case are handled under a different set of laws and policies.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephanie-l-canizales-133281">Stephanie Canizales</a>, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California, Dornsife, has spent time doing in-depth interviews and observational research on this group of migrants, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-unaccompanied-youth-become-exploited-workers-in-the-us-73738">who face a separate set of issues around labor exploitation</a>.</p>
<p>Canizales writes, “Undocumented working youth migrate to Los Angeles in hopes of working to support their families who remain in their home countries. … Much like with their adult coworkers, economic necessity and fear of removal from the workplace and the country keep undocumented migrant youth workers quiet in cases of exploitation, and docile and efficient on the job.”</p>
<h2>3. DACA improves mental health</h2>
<p>There is research that shows that DACA <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-daca-affected-the-mental-health-of-undocumented-young-adults-83341">has improved the mental health of those who received it</a>. </p>
<p>Scholars <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-aranda-334454">Elizabeth Aranda</a> of the University of South Florida and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-vaquera-405048">Elizabeth Vaquera</a> of George Washington University explain that being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. carries severe mental health consequences. These include problems such as chronic worry, sadness, isolation and even suicidal thoughts.</p>
<p>Although DACA may offer only temporary protection, the relief recipients felt was significant. Aranda and Vaquera write, “These youth shared with us that they were more motivated and happy after Obama’s executive order. As Kate, one of our participants, told us, DACA ‘has gone a long way to give me some sense of security and stability that I haven’t had in a very long time.’”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301363/original/file-20191112-178520-26v34k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A legal immigrant reads a guide of the conditions needed to apply for DACA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Immigration-Legal-Challenge/303a3b1bfcee41c68b62dbb1b844416f/11/0">AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Dreamers would boost US economy</h2>
<p>DACA critics have suggested that undocumented immigrants negatively impact the U.S. economy because they steal jobs from native-born people. In fact, there is growing evidence that shows how incorporating undocumented immigrants into the workforce actually boosts economic growth. </p>
<p>For example, take City University of New York sociologist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-hsin-437057">Amy Hsin</a>’s study that shows <a href="https://theconversation.com/daca-isnt-just-about-social-justice-legalizing-dreamers-makes-economic-sense-too-90603">what would have happened if the DREAM Act had passed</a> in 2017.</p>
<p>She found that it would have had no significant effect on the wages of U.S.-born workers. It would have created more economic opportunities by encouraging legalized immigrants to make education gains. Hsin wrote, “Overall, we estimate that the increases in productivity under the DREAM Act would raise the United States GDP by US$15.2 billion and significantly increase tax revenue.”</p>
<p>An updated version of the DREAM Act, called the American Dream and Promise Act,<a href="https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers">passed the House on June 4</a>, but has <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6">yet to be voted on by the Senate</a>.</p>
<h2>5. The moral argument for Dreamers</h2>
<p>Arguably, at the core of the effort to protect Dreamers is a belief that the U.S. has a tradition of embracing those who arrive at its shores seeking a better life. </p>
<p>However, a quick scan of history would reveal that the U.S. has not in fact always been so welcoming. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carrie-tirado-bramen-438943">Carrie Tirado Bramen</a> of the University at Buffalo explains, many writers have described U.S. history as an “ongoing duel between generosity and greed.”</p>
<p>Bramen writes that <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-daca-debate-which-version-of-america-nice-or-nasty-will-prevail-90731">DACA gets at the core of American identity</a>: “At stake is not only the fate of the Dreamers, but also how the country and the rest of the world understands the idea of America.”</p>
<h2>6. What Americans think about immigration</h2>
<p>What do Americans make of the debate over DACA?</p>
<p>According to recent polls, “Americans have never felt warmer toward immigrants, nor have they ever been more supportive of immigration,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/americans-support-for-immigration-is-at-record-highs-but-the-government-is-out-of-sync-with-their-views-121215">writes Mariano Sana, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University</a>.</p>
<p>He finds that somewhere between <a href="https://immigrationforum.org/article/american-attitudes-on-immigration-steady-but-showing-more-partisan-divides/">62%</a> and <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx">81%</a> of Americans consistently support offering undocumented immigrants legalization with a path to citizenship. </p>
<p><iframe id="A11ib" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/A11ib/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/trying-to-keep-up-with-the-dreamers-debate-here-are-6-essential-reads-91787">an article originally published on Feb. 14, 2018</a>, authored by Danielle Douez.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
On Nov. 12, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.Aviva Rutkin, Data EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1144792019-07-03T13:04:36Z2019-07-03T13:04:36ZMexicans in US routinely confront legal abuse, racial profiling, ICE targeting and other civil rights violations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281444/original/file-20190626-76722-1o2gl80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The civil rights of 11.3 million Mexican nationals who live in the US are routinely violated, according to a comprehensive new report on U.S. immigration enforcement since 2009.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Arizona-Immigration/191bc70a2f7a4f84a8cfc93dd7885e9d/37/0">AP Photo/Matt York</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Officially, the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">Constitution of the United States</a> gives everyone on U.S. soil equal protection under the law – regardless of nationality or legal status. </p>
<p>But, as recent stories of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/john-sanders-cbp.html">neglectful treatment of migrant children in government detention centers</a> demonstrate, these <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/duklr59&div=52&id=&page=">civil rights</a> are not always granted to immigrants.</p>
<p>We are scholars focused on U.S.-Mexico migration. Our <a href="http://ccis.ucsd.edu/_files/conference_papers_present/CNDH-final-3.4.19.pdf">report on the enforcement of U.S. immigration law under presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump</a>, presented in February to Mexico’s <a href="http://www.cndh.org.mx">National Human Rights Commission</a>, documented pervasive and systematic civil rights violations against Mexicans living in the United States. </p>
<p>Some of the abuses we documented – which include racial profiling, discriminatory treatment and due process violations – result from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-still-violating-fundamental-human-rights-laws-98615">Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies</a>. Others <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-immigration-policies-will-pick-up-where-obamas-left-off-70187">began much earlier</a>, under Obama or well before. </p>
<p>All paint a troubling picture about the rule of law in the United States and the challenges facing America’s largest immigrant group.</p>
<h2>Discrimination and deportation</h2>
<p>An estimated <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states">11.3 million</a> people born in Mexico now live in the United States – 3% of the total U.S. population. </p>
<p>About 5 million of them are unauthorized immigrants, meaning Mexicans <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/us-unauthorized-immigrant-population-2017/">make up just under half</a> of the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country. The other <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/">6.3 million Mexicans in the U.S.</a> are either lawful permanent residents or dual nationals who are naturalized U.S. citizens. </p>
<p>Based on these figures, we found, Immigration and Customs Enforcement – or ICE, the agency that carries out the nation’s immigration laws – arrests Mexican immigrants at levels that are <a href="http://ccis.ucsd.edu/_files/conference_papers_present/CNDH-final-3.4.19.pdf">disproportionate</a> to their share of the unauthorized immigrant population. </p>
<p>Roughly 70% of immigrants deported from the U.S. interior in 2015 <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/removehistory/">were Mexican</a>, the most recent year that such detailed deportation data are available. </p>
<p>Another 550,000 young Mexican American “Dreamers” – immigrants who were brought to the U.S. unlawfully as children – <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-deporting-the-dreamers-is-immoral-91738">became subject to deportation</a> when Trump in September 2017 rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which gave them temporary protection from deportation.</p>
<p>Not all deportations violate immigrants’ civil rights. The <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/immigration-and-nationality-act">Immigration and Nationality Act</a> says immigrants may be deported for violating a long list of criminal and administrative laws.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/lst.2013.14">evidence suggests</a> that Mexicans and other Latinos are sometimes targeted for arrest based on their race or ethnicity. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281443/original/file-20190626-76738-1h5yxo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2013 a federal judge ruled that police in Maricopa County, Arizona, were racial profiling Latinos in traffic stops that targeted immigrants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Racial-Profiling-Traffic-Stops/2c5a68d8a5634af7a96cd088f3ab8573/1/0">AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2014, <a href="http://phparivaca.org/?page_id=1174">independent monitors</a> at a Customs and Border Protection checkpoint in Arivaca, Arizona, just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, found that vehicle occupants who appeared to be Latino were 26 times more likely to be asked to show identification than white-looking vehicle occupants, who are frequently waved through the checkpoint. </p>
<p>And in 2012, a U.S. Department of Justice investigation in Alamance County, North Carolina, found that the sheriff had <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article213085749.html">instructed deputies</a> to “go out there and get me some of those taco eaters” by targeting Latinos in traffic stops and other law enforcement activities.</p>
<p>The DOJ <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-investigative-findings-alamance-county-nc-sheriff-s-office">concluded</a> that the county demonstrated an “egregious pattern of racial profiling” – a violation of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">14th Amendment</a>, which guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.</p>
<h2>Family separation</h2>
<p>Mexicans in the United States have seen their constitutional rights violated in other ways. </p>
<p>The most egregious example was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-sessions-can-end-immigrant-family-separations-without-congress-help-98599">forced separation of families found to have crossed the border illegally</a>. </p>
<p>Under this Trump administration policy, which began in April 2018, at least <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/family-separation">2,654 migrant children</a> – and perhaps <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/01/17/oei-bl-18-00511.pdf">thousands more</a> – were taken from their parents and held in government custody while their parents were criminally prosecuted for crossing the border unlawfully. </p>
<p>Thirty of the children known to have been separated from their families were Mexican; the rest were from Central America. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/emails-show-trump-admin-had-no-way-link-separated-migrant-n1000746">Poor record-keeping</a> has made it difficult for all of them to be reunited with their families before their parents’ deportation. </p>
<p>Together, these actions violate the constitutional rights to legal due process, equal protection and, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-603d-d102-a76d-ebbd03e30001">the Southern District of California</a>, the right of parents to determine the care for their children.</p>
<p>“The liberty interest identified in the Fifth Amendment provides a right to family integrity or to familial association,” wrote Judge Dana M. Sabraw in a June 2018 ruling. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281446/original/file-20190626-76701-oxey35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A child from Guerrero, Mexico, clings to her mother as the family waits in Tijuana to apply for asylum in the U.S., June 13, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Immigration-The-Goal/c9eba4dce9d040308ec4cfef408ac1f6/13/0">AP Photo/Gregory Bull</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More routine civil rights violations happen to Mexicans in the U.S. every day, our report found. </p>
<p>Though children born in the U.S. are entitled by law to American citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status, hundreds of undocumented Mexican women in Texas have been <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-immigrant-birth-certificate-20151016-story.html">denied birth certificates</a> for their U.S.-born children since 2013, according to a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-texas-immigrant-birth-20150718-story.html">lawsuit filed by parents</a>. In 2016, Texas <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/25/texas-agrees-to-resolve-birth-certificate-case/">settled the lawsuit</a> and agreed to expand the types of documents immigrants can use to prove their identity.</p>
<p>And in both Arizona and Texas, so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/09/texas-immigration-sanctuary-cities-law-arizona">show me your papers</a>” laws allow police to demand identification from anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” may be undocumented, which may lead to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/785481/download">discriminatory targeting</a> of Latinos.</p>
<p>Once in government detention, <a href="https://www.colef.mx/emif/eng/">surveys conducted in Mexico</a> of recently deported immigrants show, Mexican deportees are often badly treated. </p>
<p>On average, in 2016 and 2017, about half of all recently deported Mexicans reported having no access to medical services or a bathroom while in government custody. One-third reported experiencing extreme heat or cold. </p>
<p>Mexicans are <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes">not alone in their negative experiences at border patrol facilities</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-06/OIG-19-47-Jun19.pdf">recent report by the Office of Inspector General</a> found unsafe and unsanitary conditions at several U.S. immigrant detention centers, and immigration lawyers found <a href="https://time.com/5607608/migrant-conditions-holding-centers-border/">food shortages at some migrant children’s shelters</a>.</p>
<h2>A climate of fear</h2>
<p>While Mexicans in the United States have faced <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1163/156916306777835376">biased law enforcement</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846170/">discrimination</a> for many decades, their treatment appears to have worsened since President Trump took office in 2017 with an openly <a href="http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/">anti-Mexican agenda</a>.</p>
<p>A survey of Mexicans recently deported from the United States <a href="https://www.colef.mx/emif/eng/">found</a> that the number of people who reported experiencing verbal abuse or physical assault during their time in the U.S. increased 47% between 2016 and 2017. </p>
<p>The number of hate crimes against Latinos reported to the <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-1;%20https:/ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/tables/table-1.xls.">FBI</a> also rose 24% in 2017 compared to 2016 – increasing from 344 incidents to 427. </p>
<p>Mexico is concerned about its citizens in the United States. </p>
<p>In March, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard <a href="https://www.vidaenelvalle.com/news/politics-government/article227092954.html">announced</a> it would provide more consular services online to increase the reach of Mexico’s 50 brick-and-mortar consulates in the U.S. and provide more legal training to consulate officials. </p>
<p>To support Mexicans in the U.S. with deportation and other immigration cases, the Mexican government will also <a href="https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/nuevos-consules-generales-en-ee-uu-presentan-estrategia-para-fortalecer-defensa-de-connacionales?idiom=es">strengthen its official ties with U.S.-based legal aid providers</a>. </p>
<p>In theory, Mexico shouldn’t have to scramble to defend the rights of its citizens in the U.S. because the U.S. Constitution would. But, in practice, the civil rights of immigrants are simply not always guaranteed.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David FitzGerald has received research funding from Mexico's National Human Rights Commission.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Y. McClean and Gustavo López do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new report on Mexicans in the US paints a troubling picture about the treatment of the country’s largest immigrant group.David FitzGerald, Theodore E. Gildred Chair in U.S.-Mexican Relations, Professor of Sociology, and Co-Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San DiegoAngela Y. McClean, Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology, Fellow and Graduate Researcher at Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San DiegoGustavo López, Graduate Researcher at Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/986122018-06-19T21:49:44Z2018-06-19T21:49:44ZTrump’s act of state terrorism against children<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223924/original/file-20180619-126559-eg7t33.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Children listen to speakers during an immigration family separation protest in Phoenix, Arizona.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>State terrorism comes in many forms, but one of its most cruel and revolting expressions is when it is aimed at children. </p>
<p>Even though U.S. President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html">backed down in the face of a scathing political and public outcry</a> and ended his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents, make no mistake: His actions were and remain a form of terrorism. </p>
<p>That he was defiant until his back was against the wall points not only to a society that has lost its moral compass, but has also descended into such darkness that it demands both the loudest forms of moral outrage and a collective resistance aimed at eliminating the narratives, power relations and values that support it.</p>
<p>State violence against children has a <a href="https://www.juancole.com/2018/06/dictators-children-sessions.html">long, dark history among authoritarian regimes.</a> </p>
<p>Josef Stalin’s police took children from the parents he labelled as “enemies of the people.” Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet all separated children from their families on a large scale as a way to punish political dissidents and those parents considered disposable. </p>
<p>Now we can add Trump to the list of the depraved.</p>
<p>Amnesty International called Trump’s decision to separate children from their parents and warehouse them in cages and tents for months as a cruel policy that amounts to <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/usa-family-separation-torture">“nothing short of torture.”</a> </p>
<p>Many of the parents whose children were taken away from them entered the country legally, unwittingly exposing what resembles a state-sanctioned policy of racial cleansing. <a href="https://apnews.com/afc80e51b562462c89907b49ae624e79">Allegations of abuse</a> against the children while detained are emerging. And federal U.S. officials have said despite Trump’s about-face, children who have already been separated from their parents — more than 2,000 of them — will not be reunited with them.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223928/original/file-20180619-126531-6bgzm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Immigrant children are shown outside a former Job Corps site that now houses them on June 18, 2018, in Homestead, Fla.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In any democratic society, the primary index through which a society registers its own meaning, vision and politics is measured by how it treats its children, and its commitment to the ideal that a civilized society is one that does everything it can to make the future and the world a better place for youth.</p>
<h2>Abuse and terror</h2>
<p>By this measure, the Trump administration has done more than fail in its commitment to children. It has abused, terrorized and scarred them. What’s more, this policy was ludicrously initiated and legitimized by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a notorious anti-immigrant advocate, with <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/14/jeff-sessions-points-to-the-bible-in-defense-of-separating-immigrant-families/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.13fc93211747">a Bible verse that was used historically by racists to justify slavery.</a></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bibles-message-on-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents-is-a-lot-different-from-what-jeff-sessions-thinks-98419">The Bible's message on separating immigrant children from parents is a lot different from what Jeff Sessions thinks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the name of religion and without irony, Sessions put into play a policy that has been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.</p>
<p>At the same time, Trump justified the policy <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/family-separation-democrats-trump/index.html">with the notorious lie that the Democrats have to change the law</a> for the separations to stop, when in actuality the separations are the result of a policy inaugurated by Sessions under Trump’s direction. </p>
<p>Trump wrote on Twitter that the Democrats are breaking up families.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1008709364939677697"}"></div></p>
<p>Yet according to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/politics/trump-immigration-separation-border.html">New York Times</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr. Trump was misrepresenting his own policy. There is no law that says children must be taken from their parents if they cross the border unlawfully, and previous administrations have made exceptions for those travelling with minor children when prosecuting immigrants for illegal entry. A “zero tolerance” policy created by the president in April and put into effect last month by the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, allows no such exceptions, Mr. Trump’s advisers say.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen actually elevated Trump’s lie to a horrendous act of wilful ignorance and complicity.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1008467414235992069"}"></div></p>
<p>This is an extension of the carceral state to the most vulnerable groups, putting into play a punitive policy that signals a descent into fascism, American-style.</p>
<p>The New Yorker’s Marsha Gessen got it right in comparing Trump’s policies towards children to those used by Vladimir Putin in Russia, both of which amounts to what she calls <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/taking-children-from-their-parents-is-a-form-of-state-terror">“an instrument of totalitarian terror.”</a> </p>
<p>Both countries arrest children in order to send a powerful message to their enemies. In this case, Trump’s message was designed to terrorize immigrants while shoring up his base, while Putin’s message is to squelch dissent in general among the larger populace. Referring to Putin’s reign of terror, she writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The spectacle of children being arrested sends a stronger message than any amount of police violence against adults could do. The threat that children might be removed from their families is likely to compel parents to keep their kids at home next time — and to stay home themselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Children screaming for their parents</h2>
<p>Within the last few weeks, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-immigration-children-audio-trump-border-patrol-separate-families-parents-detention-center-a8405501.html">heart-wrenching reports, images and audio</a> have emerged in which children, including infants, were forcibly separated from their parents, relocated to detention centres under-staffed by professional caretakers and housed in what some reporters have described as cages. </p>
<p>The consequences of Trump’s xenophobia are agonizingly clear in reports of migrant children screaming out for their parents, babies crying incessantly, infants housed with teenagers who don’t know how to change diapers and shattered and traumatized families.</p>
<p>The Trump administration <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/16/dhs-family-separation-mexico-border-lavandera-dnt-ac.cnn">has detained more than 2,000 children</a>. What’s more, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/heres-how-the-government-managed-to-lose-track-of-1500-migrant-children/">has lost track of more than 1,500 children it first detained</a>.</p>
<p>In some cases, it deported parents without first uniting them with their detained children. What is equally horrifying and morally reprehensible is that previous studies, such as those <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Children-Anna-Freud/dp/1258161877/ref=as_at?creativeASIN=1258161877&linkCode=w50&tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&imprToken=HKxJiMCzt0SDWl7bH6SvfA&slotNum=0&s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528998860&sr=1-1&keywords=war+and+children+anna+freud">done by Anna Freud</a> and Dorothy Burlingham in the midst of the Second World War, indicated that children separated from their parents suffered both emotionally in the short run and were plagued by long-term separation anxieties.</p>
<p>It’s no wonder the American Academy of Pediatrics referred to the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their families as one of <a href="http://www.aappublications.org/news/2018/05/08/immigration050818">“sweeping cruelty.”</a></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223926/original/file-20180619-126540-14sf4xl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Christopher Baker, 3, holds a sign that reads ‘Which baby deserves to sleep in a cage?’ as he attends a Poor People’s Campaign rally with his mother in Olympia, Wash., on June 18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump has mobilized the fascist fervour that inevitably leads to prisons, detention centres and acts of domestic terrorism and state violence. Echoes of Nazi camps, Japanese internment prisons and the mass incarceration of Black and brown people, along with the destruction of their families, are now part of Trump’s legacy. </p>
<p>Shameless cruelty now marks the neoliberal fascism currently shaping American society. Trump <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/392886-dem-lawmaker-to-trump-stop-holding-kids-hostage-to-build-your">used children as hostages</a> in his attempt to implement his racist policy of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to please his white supremacist base. </p>
<p>Trump’s racism was on full display as he dug in to defend this white supremacist policy. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1009071403918864385"}"></div></p>
<p>He likened migrants to insects or disease-carrying rodents. In the past, he has also called undocumented <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-44148697/trump-immigrant-gangs-animals-not-people">immigrants “animals.”</a> This is a rhetoric with a dark past. The Nazis used similar analogies to describe Jews. This is the language of white supremacy and neo-fascism.</p>
<h2>Long history in the U.S.</h2>
<p>But let’s be clear. While the caging of children provoked a great deal of moral outrage across the ideological spectrum, the underlying logic has been largely ignored. </p>
<p>These tactics have a long history in the United States, and in recent years have been intensified with the collapse of the social contract, expanding inequality and the increasing criminalization of a range of behaviours associated with immigrants, young people and those populations considered most vulnerable.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fascisms-return-and-trumps-war-on-youth-88867">Fascism’s return and Trump’s war on youth</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The horrible treatment of immigrant parents and children by the Trump regime signals not only a hatred of human rights, justice and democracy, it lays bare a growing fascism in the United States in which politics and power are now being used to foster disposability. White supremacists, religious fundamentalists and political extremists are now in charge. </p>
<p>It’s all a logical extension of his plans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-embassy-cables-warned-against-expelling-300000-immigrants-trump-officials-did-it-anyway/2018/05/08/065e5702-4fe5-11e8-b966-bfb0da2dad62_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b8fd2325dc34">to deport 300,000 immigrants and refugees,</a> including 200,000 Salvadorans and 86,000 Hondurans, by revoking their temporary protected status.</p>
<p>His cruelty is also evident in his <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/daca-trump-ends-news-latest-dreamers-act-immigration-renewal-immigrants-jeff-sessions-a7930926.html">rescinding of DACA for 800,000 so-called dreamers</a> and the <a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/immigrants-arent-bludgeons-far-right-use-against-democrats">removal of temporary protected status for 248,000 refugees</a>. </p>
<p>“Making America Great Again” and “America First” morphed into an unprecedented and unapologetic act of terrorism against immigrants. While the Obama administration also locked up the families of immigrants, it eventually scaled back the practice. </p>
<p>Under Trump, the savage practice <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/the-false-choice-between-jailing-children-and-separating-families/">accelerated and intensified</a>. His administration refused to consider more humane practices, such as community management of asylum-seekers. </p>
<p>It all functions as short hand for making America white again, and signals the unwillingness of the United States to break from its past and the ghosts of a lethal authoritarianism.</p>
<h2>Trump’s admiration of dictators</h2>
<p>It’s also more evidence of Trump’s <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-dreams-of-dictators-kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin/">love affair with the practices of other dictators</a> like Putin and now Kim Jong Un. And it signals a growing consolidation of power that is matched by the use of the repressive powers of the state to brutalize and threaten those who don’t fit into Trump’s white nationalist vision of the United States. </p>
<p>There is more at work here than the collapse of humanity and ethics under the Trump regime, there is also a process of dehumanization, racial cleansing and a convulsion of hatred toward those marked as disposable that echoes the darkest elements of fascism’s tenets.</p>
<p>The U.S. has now entered into a new era of racial hatred.</p>
<p>What has happened to the children and parents of immigrants does more than reek of cruelty, it points to a country in which matters of life and death have become unmoored from the principles of justice, compassion and democracy itself. </p>
<p>The horrors of fascism’s past have now travelled from the history books to modern times. The steep path to violence and cruelty can no longer be ignored. The time has come for the American public, politicians, educators, social movements and others to make clear that resistance to the emerging fascism in the United States is not an option —but a dire and urgent necessity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henry Giroux does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Donald Trump’s policy to separate children from their migrant parents lays bare his fascism. The time has come for Americans to resist this act of domestic terrorism.Henry Giroux, Chaired professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the Department of English and Cultural Studies, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/931782018-03-20T10:42:58Z2018-03-20T10:42:58ZMerit matters in US immigration, but agreeing on what ‘merit’ means is complicated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211080/original/file-20180319-31614-syzmve.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Fierce debate over who deserves to be an immigrant to the United States has drawn on for decades.</p>
<p>Recently, President Donald Trump and hardliner Republicans have proposed overhauling the U.S. immigration system to focus principally on “<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-merit-based-immigration-means-in-different-parts-of-the-world-91304">merit-based</a>” immigration. As <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-itll-be-hard-to-put-trumps-immigration-plan-into-practice-2018-2?IR=T">they define it</a>, merit means being highly educated, fluent in English, relatively wealthy and having a job awaiting in the U.S. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, advocates of legal status for <a href="https://www.lawlogix.com/what-is-the-dream-act-and-who-are-dreamers/">Dreamers</a> – immigrants brought to the U.S. as children without authorization – argue that these individuals are particularly deserving of protection, while refugee organizations underscore the dire situation of <a href="http://www.rcusa.org/history/">asylum seekers</a>.</p>
<p>The lure of “merit” is clear: When choosing individuals for some reward, it may seem natural to prefer those who can claim to deserve it most. The concept of merit undergirds many aspects of everyday life: university admission practices, <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=48">civil service hiring</a>, police and firefighters’ examinations, sports teams’ tryouts and musical competitions.</p>
<p>However, as I discuss in my book “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8333.html">The Measure of Merit</a>,” rewarding the “best” has often helped justify treating people unequally. My research shows that ways of assessing merit are rarely neutral, and that questions of fairness arise when individuals or groups feel they have not received the same opportunities as others.</p>
<h2>Equality and merit</h2>
<p>The use of merit to justify inequality has a long history in America. From the republic’s founding, Thomas Jefferson’s ringing declaration that “<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration">all men are created equal</a>” was balanced against the widespread belief that some people, whether because of birth or education or both, were more talented than others. These individuals, Jefferson and others argued, ought to be afforded greater opportunities, whether for advanced education or political leadership.</p>
<p>Jefferson celebrated the “<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html">natural aristocracy</a>,” and James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that indirect election of <a href="http://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist64.html">senators</a> and the <a href="http://supreme.findlaw.com/documents/federalist/federalist68.html">president</a> would help ensure that only the most meritorious would rise to positions of political leadership. Merit, in fact, proved a powerful way of allowing one to embrace equality and yet still justify often profound differences in opportunity. Thus, at the nation’s founding, women, African-Americans, Native Americans, noncitizen “aliens” and non-property-holding males were excluded from full political and civil rights.</p>
<p><a href="https://digitalhistory.hsp.org/pafrm/essay/struggling-freedom-early-republic">Resistance</a> was swift to the dominance of a privileged few, and slowly these basic rights were extended, first to <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/workingmens-party">white working-class males</a>, then <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html">African-American men</a> and finally <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=63">women</a>. However, there are still many circumstances where merit is employed as a way of unequally doling out limited resources. In these instances, it is crucial to ask two questions: Why turn to merit to choose some individuals over others, and how exactly will merit be gauged?</p>
<h2>Complicating merit</h2>
<p>Merit is least controversial when the criteria for success are clear and the reward is appropriate. For example, few would protest that spots on the national Olympic track team go to the top finishers in an Olympic trial. There is only one measure of success – speed – and the Olympics seek a nation’s best at that event.</p>
<p>Even in this case, however, some might question relying on a single trial rather than, say, all races run in the preceding six months or year. Merit can be tricky no matter how clear-cut the criteria.</p>
<p>When the task itself is complex, ranking performance becomes harder. There are also often real questions about whether small differences in performance matter beyond a certain level of proficiency.</p>
<p>For example, what attributes are required to be a good firefighter? Strength, speed, agility, courage, fortitude, intelligence – and the list could go on. So, should only the strongest or most courageous applicants be chosen? Or would choosing from a pool consisting of all those who are strong, fast, smart and brave enough to perform a firefighter’s duties be better? Which approach will promote both competence and diversity? Merit can be an effective way to make choices, but also, as my book shows, a powerful means of rationalizing biases and rendering them difficult to see.</p>
<h2>Immigration and racial exclusion</h2>
<p>For almost a century, the United States had a relatively open immigration policy. <a href="http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2014/us-migration-trends.aspx">Millions</a> of Irish, Germans, Scots and Scandinavians, among others, emigrated to the U.S. in the wake of economic upheavals and political repression in their home countries.</p>
<p>However, starting in the 1880s, the government began to consider immigration restriction legislation, first with the <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=47">Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882</a> and culminating in <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act">1924</a> with the <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1924_immigration_act.html">Immigration Act</a>. </p>
<p>Merit was rarely explicitly mentioned as the rationale for preferring some groups over others. Nonetheless, the push to exclude Asians and then Eastern and Southern Europeans – mostly Catholics and Jews – echoed the period’s ethnocentrism and infatuation with eugenics. Lawmakers viewed some “peoples” – primarily Northern Europeans – as biologically and culturally “superior.” <a href="http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/restrictionleague.html">Restriction proponents</a> argued that immigration should privilege these “superior” individuals.</p>
<p>Similarly, policymakers today must examine the use of merit to determine how it privileges certain groups and individuals at the expense of others. </p>
<p>What truly are the important attributes desired of a legal immigrant? Money? Advanced education? Good character? Willingness to do labor native-borns will not? Family ties?</p>
<p>How we answer depends on what goals we want to accomplish and values we wish to represent. Do we reward solely those who are already prospering? Or perhaps we should enact an immigration policy that also reflects the founding creed, that all people “are created equal.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93178/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Carson received funding for some of this research from the National Science Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and National Humanities Center. </span></em></p>How Americans decide who can come into the country and who can stay reflects beliefs about what makes people worthy of opportunity.John Carson, Associate Professor of History, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/928862018-03-06T11:40:44Z2018-03-06T11:40:44ZDACA deadline passes, Congress fails to act and fate of ‘Dreamers’ remains uncertain: 6 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208942/original/file-20180305-146655-1pigxbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigration advocates hold a rally on Capitol Hill.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The final day for an Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was set to be March 5.</p>
<p>In 2017, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">announced they would</a> shut down the program.</p>
<p>However, immigrants and the University of California filed separate lawsuits against Trump’s attempt to end it. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling/second-u-s-judge-blocks-trump-administration-from-ending-daca-program-idUSKCN1FX2TJ">Two federal courts</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/daca-injunction-what-a-federal-judges-ruling-means-for-dreamers/2018/01/10/ecb5d492-f60c-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html">ruled to reinstate</a> the program until the cases are resolved in court.</p>
<p>In the meantime, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459">Congress also failed</a> to agree on a durable solution, despite a week-long debate on the issue.</p>
<p>Thus, the future remains uncertain for young people who were brought to the U.S. as children without legal authorization. Here is a roundup of archival stories to help you understand DACA and the Dreamers’ dilemma.</p>
<h2>1. DACA’s terms and conditions</h2>
<p>DACA came with a long list of terms and conditions. For example, to apply you had to be a certain age and meet certain educational requirements.</p>
<p>Immigration scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-johnson-322147">Kevin Johnson</a> of the University of California, Davis, points out, DACA offered protection for only about 1.8 million of the estimated 3.6 million people who were brought to the U.S. as children. Of those 1.8 million who were eligible, <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-path-to-citizenship-for-1-8-million-will-leave-out-nearly-half-of-all-dreamers-90899">only about 800,000 actually applied and received protection through DACA</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-230" class="tc-infographic" height="575px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/230/0383290ac53a9bb85bf4290bcbe95349d1676be3/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>2. DACA doesn’t cover unaccompanied minors</h2>
<p>It’s important to point out that DACA also does not apply to “unaccompanied minors.” You may have heard the term used especially in 2014, when unprecedented numbers of children traveling alone were arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico. Generally, these case are handled under a different set of laws and policies.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephanie-l-canizales-133281">Stephanie Canizales</a>, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California, Dornsife, has spent time doing in-depth interviews and observational research on this group of migrants, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-unaccompanied-youth-become-exploited-workers-in-the-us-73738">who face a separate set of issues around labor exploitation</a>.</p>
<p>Canizales writes, “Undocumented working youth migrate to Los Angeles in hopes of working to support their families who remain in their home countries. … Much like with their adult coworkers, economic necessity and fear of removal from the workplace and the country keep undocumented migrant youth workers quiet in cases of exploitation, and docile and efficient on the job.”</p>
<h2>3. DACA improves mental health</h2>
<p>There is research that shows that DACA <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-daca-affected-the-mental-health-of-undocumented-young-adults-83341">has improved the mental health of those who received it</a>. Scholars <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-aranda-334454">Elizabeth Aranda</a> of the University of South Florida, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-vaquera-405048">Elizabeth Vaquera</a> of George Washington University, explain that being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. carries with it severe mental health consequences. These include problems such as chronic worry, sadness, isolation and even suicidal thoughts.</p>
<p>Although DACA only offers temporary protection, the relief recipients felt was significant. They write, “These youth shared with us that they were more motivated and happy after Obama’s executive order. As Kate, one of our participants, told us, DACA ‘has gone a long way to give me some sense of security and stability that I haven’t had in a very long time.’”</p>
<h2>4. Dreamers would boost US economy</h2>
<p>DACA critics have suggested that undocumented immigrants negatively impact the U.S. economy because they steal jobs from native-born people. In fact, there is growing evidence that shows how incorporating undocumented immigrants into the workforce actually boosts economic growth. For example, take City University of New York sociologist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-hsin-437057">Amy Hsin</a>’s study that shows <a href="https://theconversation.com/daca-isnt-just-about-social-justice-legalizing-dreamers-makes-economic-sense-too-90603">what would happen if the DREAM Act was passed</a>.</p>
<p>She found that it would have no significant effect on the wages of U.S.-born workers. It would create more economic opportunities by encouraging legalized immigrants to make education gains. Hsin writes, “Overall, we estimate that the increases in productivity under the DREAM Act would raise the United States GDP by US$15.2 billion and significantly increase tax revenue.”</p>
<h2>5. The moral argument for Dreamers</h2>
<p>Arguably, at the core of the effort to protect Dreamers is a belief that the U.S. has a tradition of embracing those who arrive at its shores seeking a better life. However, a quick scan of history would reveal that the U.S. has not in fact always been so welcoming. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carrie-tirado-bramen-438943">Carrie Tirado Bramen</a> of the University at Buffalo explains, many writers have described U.S. history as an “ongoing duel between generosity and greed.”</p>
<p>Bramen writes that <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-daca-debate-which-version-of-america-nice-or-nasty-will-prevail-90731">this issue gets at the core of American identity</a>: “At stake is not only the fate of the Dreamers, but also how the country and the rest of the world understands the idea of America.”</p>
<h2>6. Millions still in the shadows</h2>
<p>Dreamers are the main impetus for the current debate on immigration. As professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-wright-435291">Matthew Wright</a> of American University points out, a victory for Dreamers would be seen as a big “win” for Democrats and some Republicans.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Trump and immigration hard-liners see it as an opportunity to strike a deal that would also include funding for additional security at the U.S.-Mexico border.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/ahead-of-government-shutdown-congress-sets-its-sights-on-not-so-comprehensive-immigration-reform-89998">Neither side has sought to address the remaining millions of undocumented immigrants</a> who are not Dreamers, and who have created lives and community ties in the U.S. For decades, Congress has stalled on comprehensive immigration reform that would offer undocumented immigrants a path to legal status. Even if Congress passes a Dreamer solution, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants will continue to live in fear of detention, deportation and long-term family separation.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on February 14, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92886/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Scholars have you covered on all sides of the ‘Dreamers’ issue, with solid research to boot.Danielle Douez, Associate Editor, Politics + SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/917382018-02-28T11:38:21Z2018-02-28T11:38:21ZWhy deporting the ‘Dreamers’ is immoral<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208179/original/file-20180227-36680-1s5aobn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigrants and activists demonstrate in front of the Republican Party headquarters in Washington</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Luis Alonso Lugo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/26/588813001/supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-key-daca-case-for-now">refused to review</a> a federal judge’s order that the Trump administration continue the <a href="https://www.ice.gov/daca">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.</a></p>
<p>It was back in September 2017 that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced</a> the end of the Obama-era program that shields hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-daca">Sessions argued</a> that this program rewarded those who disobeyed the laws of the United States. The United States has an obligation to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-daca">“end the lawlessness”</a> of DACA, he argued, by winding down the program and, at the same time, making a case for the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/daca-dreamers-shutdown.html">deportation of the “Dreamers”</a> or those previously protected by DACA. </p>
<p>For now, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/26/588813001/supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-key-daca-case-for-now">leaves the program in place</a>.</p>
<p>As a scholar, who has tried to understand <a href="https://phil.washington.edu/people/michael-blake">how morality should be applied to politics and law,</a> I do not agree with Sessions.</p>
<p>Respect for the law entails respect for moral values. Protecting the Dreamers isn’t about rejecting the rule of law. Rather, it reflects respect for the morality that the law proclaims. </p>
<h2>Can children be held morally responsible?</h2>
<p>The people covered by DACA came to the United States <a href="https://www.ice.gov/daca">when they were children</a>. Even if their entry into the United States was unlawful, the violation was committed by a child. The law of the United States affirms the common sense thought that children are unlike adults in the degree to which they morally responsible.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208181/original/file-20180227-36689-iu4a6y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Dreamers came as children.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mollyswork/36982427456/in/photolist-Ym1BeA-JJKm8k-cJP653-8nrVuo-cJP5Xy-FYje5w-8noASe-23dz3oU-XmPKNb-YCLfBP-24ftkHU-244sjCL-YCLg1e-YnzxWs-22cHJxv-9skxBR-XoMUbp-Y2BtGj-9soxf7-Ym131w-GavK2Y-9skBuM-XmPC79-9skBqM-gs3EvG-Ym1mGE-24ftkUW-YCKuyD-Z1wrTU-8nsuwE-8nmsc6-YYrU5Q-FYjdXN-YCLbSV-cPEAeu-YqfwZr-Ym1jwN-cmcN8o-23dz4du-23dz3Z3-Y2BiEq-npKsn3-XoMZyt-23Fzof2-XoMYri-XmPK7m-XoNsHt-9soBGf-gs36Ju-8nnV38">Molly Adams</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The laws of the United States do not, for example, <a href="http://www.cs.xu.edu/%7Eosborn/main/lawSchool/contractsHtml/bottomScreens/Briefs/Restatement%2012.%20Capacity%20to%20Contract.htm">let children create binding contracts</a>. Children are not allowed to perform many actions open to adults: They cannot <a href="http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-260-21.html">smoke tobacco, get tattoos, drink alcohol</a>, <a href="http://nysdmv.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/173/%7E/the-driving-age-in-new-york-state-and-the-graduated-licensing-law">drive automobiles</a>, nor <a href="http://www.elections.ny.gov/votingregister.html">vote in federal elections</a>. Nor are they liable to the <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/graham-v-florida/">same sorts</a> of criminal punishments as adults. </p>
<p>Their degree of culpability for criminal acts is generally taken to be lower than that of adults – and some punishments, such as the death penalty, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646">are taken off the table for children entirely</a>. </p>
<p>In the case of DACA, however, deporting the Dreamers would involve subjecting people to a significant punishment. And it would do so in response to an action people took when they were children. This is exactly the sort of action the law itself regards as morally inappropriate. </p>
<h2>Punishment and deportation</h2>
<p>One response to this argument against deportation might be to say that deportation is not, in fact, a punishment. It is simply refusing to provide a benefit - namely, the right to remain within the United States. The foreign citizen who is refused the right to migrate to the United States is inconvenienced – but that’s hardly the same as being punished. And, indeed, deportation is generally understood in law to be a <a href="https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume13/issue5/Markowitz13U.Pa.J.Const.L.1299(2011).pdf">“civil penalty,”</a> rather than a punishment. </p>
<p>Even a civil penalty, though, is something whose imposition must be justified morally. The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have sometimes emphasized that being expelled from one’s home involves the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/case.html">destruction of much of what one values</a>. It is the destruction of all that one has built. </p>
<p>This fact was recognized early in the history of the American legal system. Founding father James Madison, in discussing the <a href="https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html">Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798</a>, argued strongly against deportation. <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=566&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field">He said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“… if a banishment of this sort, be not a punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult to imagine a doom to which the name might be applied.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Supreme Court agrees. It recently reaffirmed its commitment to the thought that deportation, even if a mere penalty, is <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf">“a uniquely severe”</a> one.</p>
<h2>Residency and rights</h2>
<p>The DACA opponent might, in reply, argue that the morality of the law applies only to those people who are legitimately subject to the law. The laws of the United States might insist, in other words, that the United States has no particular obligations to those people who have entered into <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/illegal-immigrant">the political community, defined by its jurisdictional limits</a>, without any right. </p>
<p>Here, too, the law of the United States disagrees.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208182/original/file-20180227-36696-1t42n01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The law itself gives certain rights to the undocumented.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/131830793@N03/16989650198/in/photolist-rTjp6q-9ivJBr-SzAECv-RhWYzS-SzACjn-RauRDh-XUuX2L-85Ypi4-sYdpN-5AgqmS-4LxJF1-eutPcQ-Jwd66-4Ltwtn-4vpMvQ-7pBKdX-4LxJFQ-4Ltvjc-nXyyV3-4Ltvk2-8kub3D-RcstVR-Q9ptKe-spQNRh-RjAEBC-SzADDX-SzADqv-RhWZUf-RhWZ7U-RZMwQy-RhX3Ws-RZMwVU-N6xyS3-SkJRPU-Q9ptCa-Q9ptyc-Q6CbAC-Q9ptnR-RjAEFq-RjAEAW-Q9ptF6-RjAEHu-QNHXfs-RjAEx9-Q6CbGE-RjAEuU-RcstS4-Q9ptsk-Q6CbyJ-RjAEwh">David Davies</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The mere fact of being found within the United States – whether rightfully or not – <a href="https://www.nilc.org/get-involved/community-education-resources/know-your-rights/">provides one with significant rights</a> under the Constitution. The law itself gives the undocumented legal rights to bring claims in vindication of their constitutional rights.</p>
<p>Undocumented children, for instance, have a constitutional right to be provided with public schooling. The Supreme Court, in defending this principle, argued that all people within the state’s jurisdiction - <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/case.html">“even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful”</a> – are guaranteed due process under the law.</p>
<h2>Morality and migration</h2>
<p>Yes, nothing in the law requires the opening of all borders. And it is true that the United States does not have an obligation to provide the right to enter or stay in the country to all who might desire that right. </p>
<p>However, the Dreamers are not like other people. The simple fact of where they are now provides them with constitutional standing denied to outsiders. </p>
<p>And, as emphasized earlier, whatever wrong they might have done in crossing into the United States, they did as children. The revocation of DACA, however, would announce that they are rightly subjected to a significant – indeed, a devastating – punishment, in virtue of an act committed in childhood. </p>
<p>Law is not the same as morality. <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674554610">But morality can sometimes look to law</a>, in determining where its deliberations might begin. If the deportation of the DACA recipients would violate the moral principles that underlie the American legal system, there is at least some reason to think that such deportation is morally wrong. </p>
<p>Contrary to Jeff Sessions, I believe that the United States would not respect the law best by deporting the Dreamers. It would respect it best by living up to the moral ideals that make the law worth following.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.</span></em></p>Conservatives on migration claim that allowing the DACA recipients to stay shows disrespect for the law. The moral principles that underlie the American legal system, however, tell a different story.Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Governance, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/917872018-02-14T11:39:52Z2018-02-14T11:39:52ZTrying to keep up with the ‘Dreamers’ debate? Here are 6 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206280/original/file-20180213-44660-fx3i20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigrant rights supporters in Miami.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Lynne Sladky</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The future remains uncertain for a group of young people who were brought to the U.S. as children without legal authorization. </p>
<p>Some of these so-called “Dreamers” were temporarily shielded from deportation through an Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. In 2017, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/trump-daca-dreamers-immigration.html">announced he would</a> rescind DACA and tasked Congress with finding a durable solution before March 5, 2018. However, lawsuits were filed against Trump’s attempt to end DACA and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling/second-u-s-judge-blocks-trump-administration-from-ending-daca-program-idUSKCN1FX2TJ">two federal courts</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/daca-injunction-what-a-federal-judges-ruling-means-for-dreamers/2018/01/10/ecb5d492-f60c-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html">have ruled to reinstate</a> the program until the cases are resolved.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is holding up <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/mitch-mcconnell-dreamers-immigration-401209">his end of a bargain</a> to end a January government shutdown led by Democrats, in an effort to spur action on Dreamers. As promised, the Senate is now holding an open debate on immigration. </p>
<p>Here is a roundup of archival stories to help you follow along.</p>
<h2>1. DACA’s terms and conditions</h2>
<p>DACA came with a long list of terms and conditions. For example, to apply you had to be a certain age and meet certain educational requirements.</p>
<p>Immigration scholar <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-johnson-322147">Kevin Johnson</a> of the University of California, Davis, points out, DACA offered protection for only about 1.8 million of the estimated 3.6 million people who were brought to the U.S. as children. Of those 1.8 million who were eligible, <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-path-to-citizenship-for-1-8-million-will-leave-out-nearly-half-of-all-dreamers-90899">only about 800,000 actually applied and received protection through DACA</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-230" class="tc-infographic" height="575px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/230/0383290ac53a9bb85bf4290bcbe95349d1676be3/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>2. DACA doesn’t cover unaccompanied minors</h2>
<p>It’s important to point out that DACA also does not apply to “unaccompanied minors.” You may have heard the term used especially in 2014, when unprecedented numbers of children traveling alone were arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico. Generally, these case are handled under a different set of laws and policies.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephanie-l-canizales-133281">Stephanie Canizales</a>, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California, Dornsife, has spent time doing in-depth interviews and observational research on this group of migrants, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-unaccompanied-youth-become-exploited-workers-in-the-us-73738">who face a separate set of issues around labor exploitation</a>.</p>
<p>Canizales writes, “Undocumented working youth migrate to Los Angeles in hopes of working to support their families who remain in their home countries. … Much like with their adult coworkers, economic necessity and fear of removal from the workplace and the country keep undocumented migrant youth workers quiet in cases of exploitation, and docile and efficient on the job.”</p>
<h2>3. DACA improves mental health</h2>
<p>There is research that shows that DACA <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-daca-affected-the-mental-health-of-undocumented-young-adults-83341">has improved the mental health of those who received it</a>. Scholars <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-aranda-334454">Elizabeth Aranda</a> of the University of South Florida, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-vaquera-405048">Elizabeth Vaquera</a> of George Washington University, explain that being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. carries with it severe mental health consequences. These include problems such as chronic worry, sadness, isolation and even suicidal thoughts.</p>
<p>Although DACA only offers temporary protection, the relief recipients felt was significant. They write, “These youth shared with us that they were more motivated and happy after Obama’s executive order. As Kate, one of our participants, told us, DACA ‘has gone a long way to give me some sense of security and stability that I haven’t had in a very long time.’”</p>
<h2>4. Dreamers would boost US economy</h2>
<p>DACA critics have suggested that undocumented immigrants negatively impact the U.S. economy because they steal jobs from native-born people. In fact, there is growing evidence that shows how incorporating undocumented immigrants into the workforce actually boosts economic growth. For example, take City University of New York sociologist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-hsin-437057">Amy Hsin</a>’s study that shows <a href="https://theconversation.com/daca-isnt-just-about-social-justice-legalizing-dreamers-makes-economic-sense-too-90603">what would happen if the DREAM Act was passed</a>.</p>
<p>She found that it would have no significant effect on the wages of U.S.-born workers. It would create more economic opportunities by encouraging legalized immigrants to make education gains. Hsin writes, “Overall, we estimate that the increases in productivity under the DREAM Act would raise the United States GDP by US$15.2 billion and significantly increase tax revenue.”</p>
<h2>5. The moral argument for Dreamers</h2>
<p>Arguably, at the core of the effort to protect Dreamers is a belief that the U.S. has a tradition of embracing those who arrive at its shores seeking a better life. However, a quick scan of history would reveal that the U.S. has not in fact always been so welcoming. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carrie-tirado-bramen-438943">Carrie Tirado Bramen</a> of the University at Buffalo explains, many writers have described U.S. history as an “ongoing duel between generosity and greed.”</p>
<p>Bramen writes that <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-daca-debate-which-version-of-america-nice-or-nasty-will-prevail-90731">this issue gets at the core of American identity</a>: “At stake is not only the fate of the Dreamers, but also how the country and the rest of the world understands the idea of America.”</p>
<h2>6. Millions still in the shadows</h2>
<p>Dreamers are the main impetus for the current debate on immigration. As professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-wright-435291">Matthew Wright</a> of American University points out, a victory for Dreamers would be seen as a big “win” for Democrats and some Republicans.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Trump and immigration hard-liners see it as an opportunity to strike a deal that would also include funding for additional security at the U.S.-Mexico border.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/ahead-of-government-shutdown-congress-sets-its-sights-on-not-so-comprehensive-immigration-reform-89998">Neither side has sought to address the remaining millions of undocumented immigrants</a> who are not Dreamers, and who have created lives and community ties in the U.S. For decades, Congress has stalled on comprehensive immigration reform that would offer undocumented immigrants a path to legal status. Even if Congress passes a Dreamer solution, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants will continue to live in fear of detention, deportation and long-term family separation.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct scholar Elizabeth Aranda’s affiliation, she is a professor at the University of South Florida.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Scholars have you covered on all sides of the ‘Dreamers’ issue, with solid research to boot.Danielle Douez, Associate Editor, Politics + SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908992018-01-30T23:22:46Z2018-01-30T23:22:46ZTrump’s path to citizenship for 1.8 million will leave out nearly half of all Dreamers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204118/original/file-20180130-38219-3uv3v7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anxiously awaiting the State of the Union</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Which “Dreamers” will be given legal recourse to stay in the U.S., and which ones will be left out?</p>
<p>This is the central question surrounding current debate in Washington over a group of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. The scramble for a solution has taken on greater urgency since the Trump administration announced that DACA would be phased out and ended in March 2018. That deadline is currently on hold due to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/daca-injunction-what-a-federal-judges-ruling-means-for-dreamers/2018/01/10/ecb5d492-f60c-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?utm_term=.bc7147a36ae9">a federal court</a> ruling – but a battle in Congress over the Dreamers’ fate closed the federal government for 69 hours earlier this month.</p>
<p>Some conservatives have <a href="https://theconversation.com/ahead-of-government-shutdown-congress-sets-its-sights-on-not-so-comprehensive-immigration-reform-89998">balked at the idea</a> of giving “amnesty” to any lawbreakers whatsoever. However, in a recent proposal, President Donald Trump has offered to provide a path to legalization for 1.8 million Dreamers who either received <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a> or were DACA-eligible. </p>
<p>What would that mean? </p>
<h2>Left out of DACA</h2>
<p>DACA is an Obama-era program that provided limited rights to undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as children and met certain requirements. Since its inception in 2012, DACA provided relief to <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/01/unauthorized-immigrants-covered-by-daca-face-uncertain-future/">close to 800,000</a> young undocumented immigrants. Recipients were temporarily shielded from deportation and provided with work authorization. </p>
<p>However, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrant-parents-analysis-dapas-potential-effects-families">more than 3.6 million</a> unauthorized immigrants entered the U.S. before the age of 18. Their data show that slightly more than <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/trump-immigration-plan-lopsided-proposal">1.8 million unauthorized immigrants</a> met the criteria for applying for DACA.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-230" class="tc-infographic" height="575px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/230/0383290ac53a9bb85bf4290bcbe95349d1676be3/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Why, then, did only about 800,000 actually receive it? </p>
<p>DACA only applied to undocumented immigrants who were younger than 31 as of June 15, 2012 and had come to the U.S. before age 16. They had to be in or have graduated from high school, had to have obtained a general education development certificate, or had to have served in the military. This left out some people.</p>
<p>Anyone with a criminal record of a felony or more than two misdemeanors or who posed “a threat to national security or public safety” was prohibited from receiving DACA. This left out others.</p>
<p>Additionally, some who were eligible did not apply out of fear that signing up might lead to them or their families being deported. Indeed, after Trump assumed office a number of DACA recipients were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/daniela-vargas-detained-daca-released.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=DF54DF259713EC1A373E92133D0298F9&gwt=pay">arrested and detained</a>. </p>
<h2>Trump’s proposal: Generous or not?</h2>
<p>President Trump’s latest <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/white-house-framework-immigration-reform-border-security/">immigration proposal</a> states that it would “provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals.” The proposal appears to maintain the same requirements that existed for DACA.</p>
<p>Some supporters of the proposal have viewed the relief for that many undocumented immigrants as generous. However, the proposal would limit relief to about only one-half of Dreamers, ignoring the 1.8 million that never registered for DACA.</p>
<p>The Trump legalization plan would also only cover a minority of the total undocumented immigrant population – about 16 percent. According to the <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/">Pew Research Center</a>, the total undocumented population in the United States is <a href="https://theconversation.com/counting-11-million-undocumented-immigrants-is-easier-than-you-think-67921">more than 11 million</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the Trump proposal would leave roughly 9 million undocumented immigrants subject to deportation. </p>
<p>Millions of undocumented immigrants who have <a href="https://theconversation.com/deportees-in-mexico-tell-of-disrupted-lives-families-and-communities-90082">lived and worked in the U.S.</a> for years would not be eligible for legalization and face possible deportation. People with families – including U.S. citizen children – friends, jobs and communities in the United States will be affected. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-immigration-enforcement-could-affect-families-and-communities-69019">The fear</a> of removal <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-daca-affected-the-mental-health-of-undocumented-young-adults-83341">is real</a> and has had major health and other consequences on immigrant communities and families. </p>
<p>All of this is only part of what Trump’s proposal is seeking to do. The proposal calls for great increases in immigration enforcement, including the appropriation of billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. It also calls for increased detention and immigration enforcement and the expansion of expedited removal of noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the country. Moreover, the Trump proposal seeks drastic reductions of family-based immigration and an end to “extended-family chain migration” as well as elimination of the diversity visa program. </p>
<p>Organizations ranging from the <a href="http://aila.org/publications/videos/quicktakes/quicktake-232-white-house-immigration-proposal">American Immigration Lawyers Association</a> to the <a href="http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/2018_1_25_MALDEF_Statement_on_Trump_Administration_Immigration_Plan">Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund</a> believe that Trump’s legalization program for a portion of the undocumented community is not worth the formidable costs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90899/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar counts the winners and losers in Trump’s immigration proposal.Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/904372018-01-26T00:57:24Z2018-01-26T00:57:24ZStrong US economy boosts Trump’s ratings, as Democrats shut down government for three days<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203489/original/file-20180126-100919-1id09st.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Before the government shutdown, Donald Trump exceeded a 40% approval rating for the first time since May 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Carlos Barria</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On January 20, 2018, exactly one year after Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, the US government entered a partial shutdown for three days – the first shutdown since 2013. This is the second shutdown that has occurred when the same party controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress; one agency was shut down for one day in 1980.</p>
<p>While Republicans hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate, it usually takes three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes) to invoke cloture and prevent filibustering of legislation. In the House of Representatives, Republicans have a 238-193 majority, and a bill that funded the government passed 230-197.</p>
<p>In the Senate, the same bill <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/19/us/politics/live-senate-vote-government-shutdown.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur">won the vote 50-49</a>, but was short of the 60 votes needed for cloture. Five Democrats, all representing states Trump won by at least 18 points in 2016, voted in favour of this bill, and five Republicans voted against, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “no” vote was technical, to allow him to reintroduce the same bill.</p>
<p>The reason Democrats denied supply was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals">dispute over “Dreamers”</a> – children who came to the US illegally. Under President Barack Obama, the approximately 800,000 Dreamers were eligible for renewable two-year non-deportation periods, and work permits. Trump rescinded this program in September 2017, but Congress was given until March 2018 to legislate an alternative.</p>
<p>Four months since Trump’s rescission, no legislation on Dreamers has been voted on by either chamber. On January 11, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/trump-shithole-countries.html">Trump reportedly said</a> “shithole countries” in reference to immigrants from Haiti and some African countries. Democrats clearly believe Trump and Republican congressional leaders will do nothing to stop the Dreamers being deported, so they blocked Supply to try to force action.</p>
<p>On 22 January, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/government-shutdown-republicans-democrats?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">shutdown ended with Democratic support</a> after McConnell promised the Senate would vote on action for the Dreamers. However, the government’s funding expires on February 8. If McConnell fails to honour his promise, it is likely there will be another US government shutdown. </p>
<p>The funding bill agreed to also funded the Children’s Health Insurance Program for six years – a key Democratic priority.</p>
<p>Even if a bill that stopped the deportation of Dreamers passed the Senate, the House of Representatives is more difficult, as there is a large bloc of hard-right Republicans who would detest leaders bringing any pro-Dreamer legislation to a vote. Trump can veto legislation, and it requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override his veto.</p>
<p>The strong US economy has improved Trump’s ratings in the last month. According to the <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo">FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate</a>, Trump’s ratings were 36.4% approve, 57.5% disapprove on December 16, but they are now at 39.1% approve, 55.9% disapprove. </p>
<p>Before the shutdown, Trump exceeded 40% approval for the first time since May 2017.</p>
<p>The strong US economy also appears to be helping Republicans in the race for Congress. A month ago, Democrats led Republicans by 50-37, but that advantage has shrunk to 46-39 in the <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo">FiveThirtyEight aggregate</a>. </p>
<p>Republicans may also be benefiting from a lack of media focus on the controversial bills they had passed or attempted to pass, such as the corporate tax cuts or Obamacare repeal.</p>
<p>The shutdown was not long enough to have a large impact on Trump’s ratings or the race for Congress. According to <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-government-shutdown-effect-big-in-the-short-term-small-after-that/">FiveThirtyEight analyst Harry Enten</a>, the previous two long shutdowns – in 1995-96 and 2013 – had a large negative short-term impact on the Republicans, who were blamed for both. However, once the shutdowns were resolved, voters quickly forgot about the disruption.</p>
<p>Midterm elections will be held this November, in which all 435 House of Representatives members and one-third of the 100 senators are up for election. </p>
<p>Owing to natural clustering of Democrats in cities and Republican gerrymandering, Democrats probably need a high single-figure lead on the popular vote to take control of the House of Representatives. A seven-point lead for Democrats would give Republicans some chance of retaining control.</p>
<h2>Commissioned Tasmanian polls stronger for Liberals than December EMRS</h2>
<p>The Tasmanian election is expected to be called soon for either March 3 or 17. Tasmania uses the Hare-Clark system for its lower house, with five five-member electorates. A <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-a-majority-in-queensland-as-polling-in-victoria-shows-a-tie-88692">December EMRS poll</a> gave the Liberals 34%, Labor 34% and the Greens 17%.</p>
<p>There has been no media-commissioned polling since this poll, but the Liberals released a <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2018/01/new-commissioned-tasmanian-polls.html">MediaReach poll last week</a> that gave them 41.1%, Labor 34.3%, the Greens 12.8% and the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) 6.2%. </p>
<p>A ReachTEL poll for the left-wing Australia Institute in the seat of Bass gave the Liberals 49.4%, Labor 27.6%, the Greens 10.5% and the JLN 10.1%.</p>
<p>MediaReach has previously only taken polls in the Northern Territory, so it does not have a track record. ReachTEL’s Tasmanian polls were biased against Labor at the last two federal elections, but the Liberals performed better than ReachTEL expected at the 2014 state election.</p>
<h2>Essential 53-47 to federal Labor</h2>
<p>The first federal poll of 2018, an <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Essential-Report_160118.pdf">Essential poll</a>, was released last week. Labor led by 53-47, unchanged from the final Essential poll of 2017 five weeks ago. </p>
<p>Primary votes were 38% Labor (steady), 37% Coalition (steady), 9% Greens (steady) and 6% One Nation (down one). This poll was conducted on January 11-15 from a sample of 1,038.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/01/16/essential-research-53-47-labor-20/">Poll Bludger</a>, Essential will be a fortnightly poll this year. Previously, Essential polled weekly, with a rolling two-week sample used for voting intentions.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull’s net approval was minus seven, down four points since December. Bill Shorten’s net approval slumped to minus 17, down eight points since December.</p>
<p>By 44-29, voters would support Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state (44-30 in January 2017). By 53-38, voters would support a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks.</p>
<p>More than 50% thought all types of crime had increased in the last few years, including 70% who thought youth gang crime had increased, and 76% who thought drug-related crime had increased. 53% and 40% respectively thought drug crime and youth crime had increased a lot.</p>
<p>I expect the first Newspoll of 2018 when federal parliament resumes in early February.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The strong US economy has improved Donald Trump’s ratings in the last month.Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/853572018-01-23T11:21:08Z2018-01-23T11:21:08ZSpanish use is steady or dropping in US despite high Latino immigration<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/el-uso-del-espanol-en-eeuu-no-aumenta-pese-a-la-inmigracion-latina-100072">Read in Spanish</a></em>.</p>
<p>Hidden just beneath the surface of the ongoing heated <a href="http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cornelius-daca-immigration-20180117-story.html">debate about immigration in the United States</a> lurks an often unspoken concern: language. Specifically, whether immigration from Spanish-speaking countries threatens the English language’s dominance. </p>
<p>Language and immigration have long been politically linked in the U.S. When Farmers Branch, Texas, passed an English-only “requirement” in 2006, <a href="http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/farmers-branch-has-spent-five-years-and-millions-of-dollars-trying-to-keep-out-mexicans-is-it-time-for-a-truce-6426693">then-Mayor Tim O'Hare</a> justified it by saying that “we need to address illegal immigration in our city and we need to do it now.”</p>
<p>The Farmers Branch city council <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/farmers-branch/2017/11/29/farmers-branch-officials-repeal-ordinance-made-english-citys-official-language">voted unanimously to drop the controversial ordinance</a> last November, but <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/12/states-where-english-is-the-official-language/?utm_term=.0569b98fc0fd">31 states and hundreds of towns</a> in the United States still have local English-only or “official English” laws.</p>
<p>The perception that Latino immigration has led Spanish to sideline or even overtake English in the U.S. is widespread. After all, Spanish is the <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/183483/ranking-of-languages-spoken-at-home-in-the-us-in-2008/">second most dominant language in the country, after English</a>. It is spoken by <a href="http://potowski.org/content/espEEUU">48.6 million people</a>: 34.8 million Spanish-speakers age 5 and older of various national-origin backgrounds, 11 million undocumented Latin American immigrants and an estimated 2.8 million non-Latinos who use Spanish in the home. </p>
<p>Census data on U.S. demographic changes <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf">project</a> that by 2060 the Latino population in the U.S. – the group most likely to speak Spanish – will grow 115 percent, to 119 million. </p>
<p>But these figures don’t tell the whole story. As a linguist, I have studied Spanish-English bilingualism in Texas, California, Florida and beyond, and I can attest that Spanish is not taking over the United States. Far from it: Political fearmongering notwithstanding, Spanish actually holds a rather tenuous position in the country.</p>
<h2>From bilingual to monolingual</h2>
<p>How can the Latino population be growing rapidly while Spanish-speaking remains stable? The answer lies in oft-overlooked peculiarities of census data and in the particular linguistic history of the United States.</p>
<p>If one looks only at immigration patterns over the past half-century, it is true that the U.S. has been gaining Spanish-speakers. From 1965 to 2015, roughly half of all immigration has come from Latin American countries. This trend added some <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/ph_2015-09-28_immigration-through-2065-06/">30 million people</a>, most of whom came speaking Spanish, to the American populace. </p>
<p>But this is only half the story. While new immigrants bring Spanish with them, <a href="https://bilingualismucsd.wikispaces.com/-/Wiki%20Project/Team%2010/Latino+Immigration+and+Language+Assimilation">research shows</a> that their children tend to become bilinguals who <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/20/rise-in-english-proficiency-among-u-s-hispanics-is-driven-by-the-young/">overwhelmingly prefer English</a>. As a result, the same immigrants’ grandchildren likely speak English only.</p>
<p>Linguists call this phenomenon “<a href="http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/80685">the three-generation pattern</a>.” In essence, it means that non-English languages in the U.S. are lost by or during the third generation. </p>
<p>We can see this pattern playing out in <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/20/rise-in-english-proficiency-among-u-s-hispanics-is-driven-by-the-young/">data from the Pew Hispanic Center</a>. Surveys show that in 2000, 48 percent of Latino adults aged 50 to 68 spoke “only English” or “English very well,” and that 73 percent of Latino children aged 5 to 17 did. </p>
<p>By 2014, those numbers had jumped to 52 percent and 88 percent, respectively. In other words, the shift from Spanish to English is happening nationwide, both over time and between generations.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"925388593912320000"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why English dominates</h2>
<p>Language shift is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Rather, it is a consequence of cultural forces that pressure speakers to give up one language to get another. These forces include restrictive language laws that formally <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-day-2016-proposition-58-bilingual-1478220414-htmlstory.html">prohibit the use of Spanish</a> in educational or government settings, as Farmers Branch, Texas, did for 11 years. </p>
<p>Schools also drive the three-generation pattern. Even though Latin American parents often speak to their U.S.-born children in Spanish, those children almost invariably attend English-only schools. </p>
<p>There, they learn that academic success is achieved in English. As a result, first-generation children <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526379/">expand their vocabularies and literacy practices in English</a>, not in Spanish.</p>
<p>They may also encounter negative attitudes toward Spanish from teachers and peers. For example, in October 2017, a New Jersey high school teacher was caught on video <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/nyregion/speak-american-high-school.html">reprimanding three students for speaking Spanish</a>, encouraging them, instead, to speak “American.” That no such language exists is beside the point – her message was clear. </p>
<p>Social pressure to speak English is so great that Latino immigrant parents may notice resistance to using Spanish at home <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-latino-immigrants-english-fluency-20160422-story.html">as early as kindergarten</a>. A generation later, though grandparents may continue to use Spanish in the home, grandchildren will often respond to them in English. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202623/original/file-20180119-110117-wsvy9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=481&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The children of Latino immigrants often feel social pressure to speak English at school.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gosia Wozniacka/AP Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The numerous <a href="http://www.ethnicstudies.ucsd.edu/_files/miscellaneous/Bilingual%20Manual%20on%20HOw%20to%20raise%20a%20bilingual%20child.pdf">blogs, websites and guides</a> dedicated to helping Latino parents navigate this bilingual terrain indicate just how common language shift is.</p>
<p>Indeed, when I ask my own Latino students about when they speak what to whom, the answer is almost always the same: Spanish with elders, English with everyone else.</p>
<p>This pattern seems to hold in small towns and big cities, on the East Coast and on the West, and in towns with large and small Latino populations. From <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-122260252/spanish-language-shift-in-chicago">Chicago</a> to <a href="http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380reading/heritagelangretention.pdf">Southern California</a>, children of Spanish-speaking immigrants become English-dominant. </p>
<p>The Spanish-to-English shift even occurs <a href="https://www.academia.edu/15765243/Multilingual_Miami_Trends_in_Sociolinguistic_Research">in Miami</a>, where over 65 percent of the population is Latino and where speaking Spanish has clear economic benefits. That’s why Miami <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article22190205.html">struggles to find enough Spanish-speaking teachers</a> to staff its public schools. </p>
<h2>English on the rise</h2>
<p>Spanish isn’t the only immigrant language that has struggled to keep a foothold in the U.S. Germans, Italians, Poles and Swedes went through <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/05/what-is-the-future-of-spanish-in-the-united-states/">similar language shifts</a> in the 19th and 20th centuries. These languages, too, were sometimes seen as a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-in-immigrant-america/587C8A3284F62BF298D58680511386B2#fndtn-information">threat to American identity</a> in their time. </p>
<p>Then as now, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-coca-cola-super-bowl-ad-stirs-controversy-20140203-story.html">American anxiety</a> about the role of English in U.S. society was totally unfounded. In the roughly 150,000-year history of human language, there has never been a more secure tongue than English. </p>
<p>More people worldwide <a href="https://qz.com/444456/the-most-useful-foreign-languages-an-english-speaker-can-learn-and-why/">do speak Mandarin and Spanish as their first language</a>. But with some <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/">400 million first language speakers and more than 500 million adoptive English speakers</a>, English has a global standing enjoyed by none of the roughly <a href="https://www.ethnologue.com/browse/names">6,000 other languages spoken worldwide</a>. It has been that way for about half a century. </p>
<p>If Latino immigration declines markedly in the U.S., language shift may actually lead Spanish to disappear across America. English, on the other hand, isn’t going anywhere fast.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip M. Carter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Spanish is not overtaking English in the US, despite political fearmongering. In fact, due to the ‘three-generation pattern,’ Spanish speaking in immigrant families tends to decline over time.Phillip M. Carter, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Florida International UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/900822018-01-22T11:29:24Z2018-01-22T11:29:24ZDeportees in Mexico tell of disrupted lives, families and communities<p>Ray was born in Mexico and moved to the United States with family members at age 10. </p>
<p>He told me in an interview in 2014, “I’m just a regular American like everyone else.” In middle school, Ray (a pseudonym to protect his identity) learned the Declaration of Independence and memorized all the presidents in order. His first job was replastering swimming pools in Phoenix, Arizona. Ray had a son, who was accepted to officer candidate school to attempt to earn the title of U.S. Marine.</p>
<p>After 29 years in the United States – attending school, working and raising a family – Ray was deported to Mexico.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202692/original/file-20180121-110117-1nku32b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A man deported in 2013 sits in front of his house in Nogales, Mexico. He lived in the United States for 36 years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tobin Hansen</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As an anthropologist, I set out to understand how people like Ray become socially entwined in U.S. communities. I spent 18 months <a href="http://cllas.uoregon.edu/grant-opportunities/2016-grant-recipients/tobin-hansen/">researching</a> and living with deported adults in northern Mexico. I interviewed 56 deported adults who had arrived to the United States before age 13, years or even decades ago.</p>
<p>In English, marked by East Coast pluck, Southern lilt or Southwest flatness, they told me of the <a href="https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol20/iss1/5/">ties that bind</a> them to their U.S. home communities. Their experiences raise important questions about the human costs of deportation that Washington lawmakers must consider as they debate immigration policy – particularly as it affects so-called Dreamers, noncitizens who have lived most of their lives in the United States.</p>
<h2>Belonging and alienation</h2>
<p>The people I interviewed articulated a deep sense of national belonging in the United States. Alfonso (pseudonym) was deported in 2013 after living for 43 years in Tucson, Arizona, since the age of 2. He told me, “The U.S. is everything for me. It’s everything I feel, everything I’ve ever done. It’s who I am. You grow up up there and that’s your life.”</p>
<p>They also spoke of lives that, before deportation, had been enmeshed in the everyday activities, shared understandings, social networks, ways of communicating and values of their local communities. Divorced from home, deportees often felt incomplete, shut out or shut down.</p>
<p>Paco (pseudonym) was born in Mexico in 1971, taken to Phoenix, Arizona, with family at 6 months old, and deported in 2013. He said, “It’s the little things that matter, you know: birthday parties, a quinceñera, graduations. Things happen up there and it’s just once, and you don’t get that time back.”</p>
<p>Deportees also experience wrenching <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/exiled-home">social, psychological and economic stress</a> and alienation after expulsion. They <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/Space-of-Detention/">enter unfamiliar worlds</a> when released from U.S. government custody, into <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520287082">northern Mexico border cities</a>. </p>
<p>Paco expressed his disorientation in Mexico: “For me it’s like they dropped me off in Africa … In a place I don’t know, where I have nothing. I don’t know nobody [and it’s] not my home. I have no ties to nobody.”</p>
<p>After deportation, life’s more meaningful projects became daunting – turning a living space into a home, determining a vocation, <a href="https://culanth.org/fieldsights/1287-criminal-alien-deportations-education-and-u-s-mexico-borderland-imaginaries">attending school</a>, connecting deeply with others, or imagining a future. Dustin (pseudonym), a 38-year-old deportee put it simply: “I’ve had enough with this down here. I just can’t do it. It’s just not like up there.”</p>
<p>To be sure, a mix of family support, academic or job skills, hard work, ingenuity and sheer grit, allowed some returnees to reconfigure their lives. In rare cases, some described achieving fulfillment and happiness. But they represent a narrow minority.</p>
<p>Most speak of “getting by” or “making it.” Rabbit (pseudonym), a 22-year-old deportee said, “Depression hit me pretty hard.” Rabbit describes feelings of dispossession and dejection and an inability to live a “normal life.” In characterizing the unrelenting pressure his feels, he said that he “lived in some of the hardest places [in Phoenix], and they didn’t get me. It’s just, Mexico’s got a grip on me now, and won’t let go.”</p>
<h2>Fixing immigration policy</h2>
<p>The Trump administration’s announcement on Sept. 5, 2017 that it was <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-daca">rescinding</a> Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals consigned to Congress the responsibility of action on immigration legislation. Most of those I interviewed were given a lifetime ban from legally reentering the United States. They have little hope for returning home. But since DACA’s cancellation, DACA recipients still in the United States risk losing their protection from deportation. Deportees’ sense of belonging in the United States helps illuminate the potential ramifications of legislative inaction.</p>
<p>Lawmakers, citizen and media discourse often focus immigration debates on noncitizens’ potential economic and social benefits to the United States. Nevertheless, the U.S. government also claims to ground policy decisions in principles of basic human well-being. In finding a way forward, legislators should consider the experiences of the untold deportees who, like Ray, have had their lives disrupted by dislocation from home.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90082/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tobin Hansen has received funding from the University of Oregon; the Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies at the University of California, San Diego; the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; and the Social Science Research Council, with funds provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.</span></em></p>An anthropologist went to Mexico and interviewed more than 50 people who were deported. It was like being sent to the moon, they told him.Tobin Hansen, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/904232018-01-20T12:48:14Z2018-01-20T12:48:14ZShutdown under a unified government? Blame Trump<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202653/original/file-20180120-110087-1cc7c1a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump on Jan. 19, 2018</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Government shutdowns are rare. </p>
<p>This one is unique because the U.S. has never before experienced a shutdown under a unified government, a time when the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party. </p>
<p>The policy consequences of this shutdown are likely to be minimal. And, the shutdown itself will also probably be short-lived. </p>
<p>However, the political consequences and long-term “optics” may be significant – and are more likely to negatively impact Republicans than Democrats.</p>
<h2>Politics are key</h2>
<p>A government shutdown occurs when Congress and the president fail to pass required annual appropriations into law, and they also fail to pass a temporary funding mechanism known as a “continuing resolution” to keep the government funded. Without these authorizations, the agencies and departments of the federal government literally have no legal authority to spend funds – even though the law allows some <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/01/19/578985305/open-or-closed-heres-what-happens-in-a-partial-government-shutdown">“essential” government functions to keep running</a>. </p>
<p>This time around, the politics of federal government appropriations are tied to the fate of two other controversial issues. </p>
<p>The first is DACA. Trump gave Congress <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/daca-trump-congress/index.html">six months to provide a legislative fix</a> for the approximately 800,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and whose legal status is in jeopardy because the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era executive action allowing them to stay in the country. Time is ticking for these so-called Dreamers, some of whom will lose their protective status beginning on March 5, 2018.</p>
<p>The second issue intertwined with the budget politics is funding of a health insurance program known as CHIP that provides services to <a href="https://theconversation.com/time-to-stop-using-9-million-children-as-a-bargaining-chip-90293">8.9 million</a> children.</p>
<p>Republican congressional party leaders tried to push Democrats into an uncomfortable vote by forcing them to choose between negotiating a solution for DACA or funding CHIP. This maneuver had the potential to score important political points for Republicans during an election year.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"954409393507876864"}"></div></p>
<p>But the plan was thwarted by none other than the leader of the Republican Party, President Trump. Whether it was inadvertent or not, the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/trump-chip-funding-republicans/index.html">president’s tweets</a> made many Republicans nervous that the president might not support the deal that congressional leaders had fashioned to fund the government and CHIP. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"953984671674662912"}"></div></p>
<p>The House passed the bill anyway, but the Senate balked.</p>
<p>One might say that the federal government shutdown represents a significant miscalculation by the Republican Party. The GOP is not operating as an effective governing coalition, in part because its leader does not provide a consistent strategic vision for the party. </p>
<p>There’s nothing new about Trump being a thorn in the side of Republican party leaders. As a Republican candidate he ran against the party as an outsider and used that image to his benefit. As president he often seems more concerned about personal advantage than effective party functioning.</p>
<p>Despite all efforts to blame the Democrats, the political consequences of a shutdown, even a brief one, will be more likely to hurt Republicans than Democrats who have much less power in government now. In an election year that is already seeing a huge <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/09/upshot/congress-retirements-tracker.html">uptick in Republican retirements</a> and a growing <a href="https://www.vox.com/2017/12/11/16748716/chart-democrats-2018-midterms-elections">enthusiasm for Democratic candidates</a>, the last thing Republicans need is a loss like this.</p>
<p>There are 290 days until Election Day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90423/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Victor is serves on the Board of Directors of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to transparency in campaign finance.</span></em></p>What’s unique about this shutdown? It happened under a unified government – and that’s bad news for the GOP.Jennifer Victor, Associate Professor of Political Science, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/899982018-01-19T11:42:44Z2018-01-19T11:42:44ZAhead of government shutdown, Congress sets its sights on not-so-comprehensive immigration reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202587/original/file-20180119-80197-1vw54m4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senators meet with President Donald Trump to discuss immigration on Jan. 9, 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For a moment, it looked as though 2018 might be the year that ended a three-decade streak of failure to pass so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”</p>
<p>On Jan. 11, a <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/11/dreamers-deal-reached-but-trump-has-yet-to-sign-off-336501">bipartisan group of six senators</a> brought forth a plan for comprehensive reform that would include US$2.7 billion for border security, a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” brought to the country without authorization as children, a limit on those Dreamers sponsoring their parents for citizenship and a reallocation of “diversity visas” to immigrants with <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status">recently terminated</a> Temporary Protected Status visas.</p>
<p>Prospects for the deal have dimmed since President Donald Trump, who had previously expressed sympathy for Dreamers, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/trump-credibility-capitol-hill-lawmakers-negotiating-342989">abruptly torpedoed it</a>. But the rudiments of a workable deal are still in place. If it ends up succeeding, it will be in no small part because it sidesteps the one issue that has deadlocked comprehensive reform since the 1990s: undocumented immigrants.</p>
<p>The only remotely viable path to a “comprehensive” deal, it seems, is to leave millions of undocumented immigrants who are not Dreamers out in the cold.</p>
<h2>The ‘amnesty’ stumbling block</h2>
<p>Americans of all political stripes, and their elected officials, have <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/on-views-of-immigrants-americans-largely-split-along-party-lines/">long agreed</a> that the U.S. immigration system is “broken.” Yet since the last major round of reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, efforts at “comprehensive immigration reform” spearheaded by presidents of both parties and enjoying bipartisan congressional support have gone nowhere. America’s foundational laws regarding immigrants have remained largely intact since Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House. They are the <a href="https://cis.org/Report/HartCeller-Immigration-Act-1965">Hart-Celler Act of 1965</a>, later amended by the <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/its-25th-anniversary-ircas-legacy-lives">Immigration Reform and Control Act</a> of 1986, and the <a href="https://immigration.laws.com/immigration-act-of-1990">Immigration Act of 1990</a>.</p>
<p>The main stumbling block has been hostility, mainly on the Republican side, to normalizing the status of millions of immigrants living in the country without permission. This hostility developed fairly recently, driven almost entirely by pressure to please a small but rabidly anti-immigrant base. George W. Bush largely escaped pressure to harden his relatively moderate positions prior to his election in 2000, and <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/immigration.html">actively pursued</a> comprehensive immigration reform as president. </p>
<p>But since then, serious GOP presidential candidates have increasingly had to toughen up on immigration policy in order to make it through to the general election.</p>
<p>The 2008 election witnessed the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-appalling-last-act-of-rudy-giuliani">rebirth of Rudy Giuliani</a> – formerly a relatively tolerant mayor of a “sanctuary city” – as a border security hawk and illegal immigration hard-liner. More notable still that year was Sen. John McCain, who was <a href="http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818697,00.html">forced to back off</a> his longtime support for comprehensive immigration.</p>
<p>Donald Trump, of course, <a href="http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/">launched his 2016 bid for the GOP presidential nomination</a> by railing against drug smugglers, criminals and rapists he <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-mexicans-are-leaving-the-us-than-coming-across-the-border-51296">falsely alleged</a> are streaming into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. </p>
<p>Observers understand this hostility to “amnesty” in different ways. <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/anti-immigrant-rhetoric-anti-latino/">Some see it</a> as racially motivated, and tied to hostility against Latinos and other ethnic minorities. However, my colleague Morris Levy and I have <a href="https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt19m3r9c7/qt19m3r9c7.pdf">shown in our research</a> that much of it is tied to deep conceptions about the rule of law. By this logic, roughly one-third of Americans, according to our study, reject undocumented immigrants categorically. That is, they reject them solely on the basis of breaking the law, without regard to ethnicity or other characteristics.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/mass-opinion-and-immigration-policy-in-the-united-states-re-assessing-clientelist-and-elitist-perspectives/1461C6DF33BE8E552DFFF1DC8A7993BD">We have argued</a> that this is why there is still no path to citizenship for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/counting-11-million-undocumented-immigrants-is-easier-than-you-think-67921">11 million or so</a> undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.</p>
<h2>Narrowing what ‘comprehensive’ means</h2>
<p>It’s no surprise then that, of late, the debate has devolved exclusively to address the fate of Dreamers. As some of our work indicates, Dreamers do not provoke the intransigent hostility that other undocumented immigrants do. They are less likely to be viewed as “law-breakers,” and more likely to win support on humanitarian grounds.</p>
<p>In effect, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have been written out of immigration reform altogether. The more limited deal in circulation would give Democrats a “win” with respect to illegal immigration, even if it is less than the total victory they have long sought. The concessions they offer in return – limited funding for border security, some effort to limit so-called “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/01/07/576301232/explaining-chain-migration">chain migration</a>,” and the redirecting of “diversity lottery” visas to some immigrants previously on temporary status – <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294853-black-caucus-concerned-by-end-of-diversity-visas-in-senate-immigration-bill">are not uncontroversial</a>. However, none is likely to generate anything like the reaction “amnesty” produces among categorical opponents of illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Can those undocumented immigrants hope for reprieve down the line?</p>
<p>There is precedent for large-scale amnesty: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672">legalized nearly 3 million</a> undocumented immigrants in exchange for relatively weak enforcement provisions. But given the uniquely intransigent positions taken on both sides of the issue, it is hard to imagine another such bill in the offing any time soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89998/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Wright does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If they pass a deal on DACA, it’s a win for both sides of the aisle and thousands of ‘Dreamers,’ but a loss for millions of undocumented immigrants.Matthew Wright, Assistant professor of government, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.