In recent weeks, the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several rulings affecting the U.S. immigration system. One of these rulings states that people cannot seek asylum in the United States until they are physically inside U.S. territory. This has significant implications for people arriving—especially at the U.S.-Mexico border—who were requesting entry at the border wall or at ports of entry, turning themselves over to immigration agents to ask for admission with the stated goal of seeking asylum. Now, according to the Supreme Court, the U.S. government will view them as being in Mexico, and since they will largely be denied entry, they cannot apply for asylum while still outside U.S. territory. That is, the Court treated people waiting on the Mexican side of the border as not yet having entered the United States for asylum purposes. This is curious because in some cases the side of the border wall facing Mexico is already U.S. territory because clearly the U.S. cannot build on Mexican territory. Meaning that in many places, by reaching the wall, one is technically already on U.S. soil. Future suits may test this. However, given these new legal precedents, it appears the U.S. government would deny entry for the purpose of seeking asylum inside the country. This will affect many people, particularly those from Latin America and regions experiencing armed conflict or political turmoil.
Another ruling related to what is known as “metering”—essentially a slow, controlled trickle of people allowed into U.S. territory when there is congestion of asylum seekers at the border, or when large numbers of people wish to enter the United States. It is not the first time this border-processing policy, which limits how many asylum seekers are admitted or processed at a time, has been brought up. During the pandemic—and even earlier, under programs like “Remain in Mexico”—the U.S. government stated it would only accept, say, five hundred, two hundred, or two thousand people per day across the entire border. Consequently, even though many people sought asylum, they were not immediately admitted. The U.S. government claimed this was necessary to maintain order and manage logistics—handling the entry process in a way they could manage without people sleeping on the streets or needing more hostels for migrants or overcrowded immigration detention centers. Metering was an “emergency” policy that began under Obama, continued under Trump, was paused during most of Biden’s term, though it was brought back towards the end, and continued under the Trump administration. The Supreme Court has allowed the policy to proceed into the future by lifting the lower-court block.
The third topic is Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows legal residence in the United States to whole groups of people from particular countries due to events like earthquakes, hurricanes, civil conflict, or other crises—as seen in Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador, and other countries—where nationals could stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation. However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that, in the case of Haitians and Syrians, this status of temporary protection can be completely revoked despite motives and the decision-making process. But the Supreme Court conservative majority went further, arguing that TPS designation is a matter that falls under executive authority, specifically the president’s power to decide whom, how, when, and for how long TPS is granted. Therefore, the decision strengthens the executive’s ability to terminate TPS designations and may affect other TPS holders. So, although the ruling did not directly address cases involving, for example, Salvadorans, it grants the president greater power to revoke TPS at will without explanation, preventing even lower courts from blocking such decisions—something they had done in recent years.
Altogether, these decisions have many implications that make it harder for people to enter the U.S. legally or to seek asylum, and make it difficult for those already inside the country to apply for asylum, given the lengthy, difficult process, made even worse by recent procedures implemented by the second Trump administration. Now, regarding people holding TPS, deportations will begin—starting with Haitians and Syrians—but the issue likely will not stop there. People with TPS have been in the U.S. for decades, working, paying taxes, contributing to the economy and the arts. They have children born in the U.S. who are U.S. citizens under the current practice of granting birthright citizenship; soon, the Court will rule on the future of birthright citizenship, which is so common in many countries in the Americas, which started as European colonies with an important proportion of the population born from parents and ancestors born elsewhere.
Ernesto Castañeda is a political, social, and cultural analyst. Edited by Esmeralda Alverde Duarte, Research Intern at the Immigration Lab
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon announce its ruling on Birthright Citizenship. If it sides with the Trump administration, it will revoke the practice of automatically obtaining citizenship by birth in U.S. territories. The outcome of this case has the potential not only to change how immigration law functions but also how citizenship is defined for everyone in the United States. Doing away with it would permanently damage the Supreme Court’s reputation.
Birthright Citizenship is part of the 14th Amendment and has been a right guaranteed to anyone born within the country since 1868. The amendment was originally implemented to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and means that anyone born on American soil is an American citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship at birth. Slaves were not considered citizens nor had the same political rights, and their status was inherited through maternal lines and thus also affected the children slave-owners had with enslaved mothers.
Revoking Birthright Citizenship would immediately bring into question the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of children born each year, both to citizens and to undocumented or temporary residents with permission to work and study in the United States, and not officially representing a foreign country. It would reinstate the inheritance of status that existed during slavery, where a mother’s status, in this case, documentation, would be passed down to her children, possibly for generations. It would create a group of people in the U.S. with no rights, greatly deepening inequality and democratic erosion.
Previous court decisions have upheld Birthright Citizenship regardless of the parents’ immigration status. There is a strong precedent for birthright citizenship. Even during previous periods of immigration restriction in the US, like during the years following the Chinese Exclusion Act, the U.S.-born children of undocumented Chinese parents were American citizens. Changes to birthright citizenship would directly impact newborns from undocumented parents as well as the children of foreign workers with permission to reside in the country. Systems like this have existed before in countries like Germany, but were abandoned due to their impracticality and the enduring inequalities they created.
A small group is fighting to end birthright citizenship. Most Americans do not have a problem with birthright citizenship; 64% of Americans support it. The widespread impact of ending birthright citizenship would be felt not just by everyday people but also by foreign-born CEOs, scientists, healthcare professionals, and, yes, agricultural and service workers. It would impact U.S. innovation for decades to come. It would deter people from immigrating and bringing new ideas and approaches to common problems. The U.S. would no longer be the main global hub of intellectual exchange and creativity that it has been for decades.
Ernesto Castañeda is a political, social, and cultural analyst.
Most of the narratives about immigration are wrong. They are simplistic, outdated, and dangerous. — Ernesto Castañeda.
This quote carries particular weight here in Washington, DC, where harmful rhetoric and harsh policy are produced just a couple of blocks away from immigrant communities who face its consequences directly. For decades, the topic of immigration has been at the forefront of American political discourse. Americans on opposite ends of the aisle have consistently disagreed on immigration policy and whether or not we as a country have a responsibility to accept people who cross the border and enter America “illegally”. Opinions on the topic, though always polarizing, have transformed and intensified drastically in the last decade, with the election of President Donald Trump and the emergence of the “MAGA” movement. The slogan “Make America Great Again” can be most often associated with right-wing populism, conservative nationalism, but perhaps most famously, a narrative that casts Latin American immigrants as threats to national security and as a strain on American society.
The current administration’s rhetoric and policy on immigration have single handedly created one of the most polarized political environments in American history. As the political climate has shifted, these ideological divisions have fueled a wave of widespread misconceptions and stereotypes about Latino immigrants, who they are, why they come, and the impact they have on American society. These harmful misinterpretations not only distort public attitudes but also pave the path for harsh immigration policies and are used to justify the unlawful and inhumane deportation practices carried out by ICE in Washington, DC, and across the nation.
In an effort to better understand these stereotypes and the effects they have on victims and their families, I conducted an interview with Dr. Ernesto Castañeda, a migration scholar, professor, and Director of Immigration Lab at American University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. Dr. Castañeda is a leading voice on how misconceptions shape the lived experiences of immigrant communities in DC, and how enforcement, family separation, and uncertainty shape the lives and psychological well-being of youth.
The first false assumption he addressed is the belief that America has become ‘overflooded with immigrants’. Dr Castañeda pointed out that actual population data proves just the opposite. According to a Pew Research study conducted in 2023, immigrants make up roughly 15% of America’s population (52% being from Latin America). Not only this, but out of the total number of individuals not born in America, undocumented immigrants made up a mere 27% (Pew Research 2025). Locally, immigrants constitute about the same share of the D.C. population as they do nationally. All immigrants make up about 13% of the population, out of which 11.3% identify as Latino (American Immigration Council 2025)
When looking at data from the 2024 election year, an analysis of tens of thousands of statements made by Trump showed that he repeated the sentence ” [South American countries are] emptying out their prisons and their mental institutions into the United States ” or similar ones over 560 times during his most recent re-election campaign (Marshall Project 2024). Dr. Castañeda explains how these repeated claims are what perpetuate stereotypes such as Latinos are ‘dangerous criminals, ‘ invading the country, and ‘using up public resources. ’ When average Americans, with little knowledge or exposure to immigrants, hear these statements repeatedly, they will inevitably begin to accept them as facts. However, long-term empirical studies show us otherwise. Research analyzed by the Journal of Criminology over the span of 24 years showed that no evidence exists that links undocumented immigrants to the number of violent crimes in the country. Not only this, but this study found that increases in the immigrant population within the states correspond to decreases in the prevalence of violence and crime (Light & Miller, 2018).
According to Castañeda, current narratives fail to take into account that the vast majority of Latino immigrants come to America to ‘study, work, contribute to science, to work in hospitals, to get married, and that is rarely part of the story’. Furthermore, as he explains both in his book Immigration Realities and in our interview, immigrants actually rely on public assistance at lower rates than U.S. citizens, and this is true even for their U.S born children. They also play an essential role in keeping the economy and population growing. Immigrants contribute to scientific progress, cultural creativity, and the continuation and spread of American ideas and culture. Any evolving society needs new people to sustain itself, and throughout history, immigrants have taken on that role in the United States.
While these negative narratives dominate the national conversation, their most immediate impact becomes visible in places like DC, where families must confront fear and instability while navigating their day to day lives. The Shrine of the Sacred Heart, a Catholic Church, which is just a short bus ride from the White House, has long served as a place of worship for the Catholic Latin American community in DC. However, in the last several months, it has become a hub for ICE attacks this October. The Associated Press reports that over 40 members of the parish have been recently deported as churchgoers are ‘fearful to leave their homes, get food, medical care or attend Mass’. The Archdiocese of Washington describes these mass deportations as “instruments of terror” for the Latino community of DC. The climate in the city remains especially volatile for mixed status families, who must live with the fear that their loved one will be detained while doing their daily tasks. This became a reality for one member of the Sacred Heart Church whose husband was detained by ICE while selling fruits and vegetables at the family owned fruit stand. She says, “ It’s been a very difficult, bitter month of crying and suffering…our lives changed forever one day to the next” (Associated Press, 2025)
Stories like these are not limited to Sacred Heart but are a reflection of the unique set of challenges that mixed-status families face in DC and across the nation. These effects are already being felt in DC high schools and universities, where Dr. Castañeda notes the current political environment is having consequences on youth in these mixed status families. He states, “Youth are afraid for themselves and are afraid for their families, for their friends, for the communities…that makes it harder to focus on school, we see that in the universities, we see that with colleagues, we see that with staff members who have undocumented family members”. A 2024 study published by the Journal of Latinx Psychology followed a sample of youth who are US citizens but lived in mixed status families. They discovered that exposure to current violent immigration enforcement, such as witnessing a parent or loved one deported, significantly increases severe anxiety, fear, and depression among the sampled youth. These psychological effects extended beyond the immediate family members, as the trauma was felt even when enforcement actions targeted people in their community rather than someone directly inside the home. Their study also confirmed that anti-immigration stigma quickly becomes internalized, as adolescents in the study reported feeling ashamed of their background, immigrant family, and language (Lieberman et al., 2024).
These effects could be expected to be felt especially strongly in DC due to the high prevalence of Latino youth immigrants who arrived a decade prior. Beginning in 2014, DC saw a large surge in unaccompanied youth, between the ages of 13-18, who came to America to unite with their parents, grandparents, or extended families. Castañeda explains that since this group of youth has reached a legal adult age, ICE agents might be ‘looking for an excuse to deport them’. As ICE revisits these old cases of unaccompanied minors, they are also using this as an opportunity to track down their immediate and extended families as well as their sponsors. Subsequently, the result is a painful cycle in which youth who once struggled to reunite with their family, once torn apart by borders, must now live in psychological torment and fear of losing each other once more. Current immigration enforcement practices are undoubtedly a form of psychological violence that produces hypervigilance, fear, and depression, and will cause long term trauma in immigrant communities.
Looking ahead, it is clear that America is in dire need of immigration reform, one that is based on facts, research, and empirical evidence, rather than stereotypes. However, Castaneda notes that the general public is not to blame, as one cannot expect regular Americans to understand topics as complex as immigration law. Rather, this responsibility falls on our lawmakers who must put aside partisanship and focus on creating solutions that maintain the dignity of immigrants, while addressing the realities of the current day border.
Castañeda explains the best form of immigration reform would be what he calls “generous amnesty”, or a broad pathway to legalization. Individuals and families who have been living in America for an extended period of time and have built entirely new lives must be given a path to citizenship. This is both a moral imperative but also it is a sentiment that, according to him, is largely supported by most Americans on both sides of the aisle. Recent Gallup polls confirm this fact, as 64% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats classify immigration as a positive (Gallup, 2025). A generous amnesty does not mean an open borders concept. Rather, it is a way to create legal paths to citizenship, so that migrants have other options rather than resorting to crossing the border. It is only natural that individuals and families desperate for survival will resort to the only option available to them.
Second, the US is becoming an aging nation with a retiring workforce and a declining birth rate. With the declining population and lowered birth rates, many key industries, such as agriculture, are having projected worker shortages, unable to meet the labor demands. The Economic Policy Institute finds that “Achieving historically ‘normal’ GDP growth rates will be impossible, unless immigration flows are sustained” (Bivens 2025). Employment based immigration is one way through which the government can offset this issue. Granting a greater number of H-1B and H-2B visas can help balance these effects by bringing in younger and eager individuals who are ready to work in these essential positions.
In conclusion, data, decades of research, the realities in DC, and Dr. Castañeda’s expertise make one point unmistakably clear. The narratives that dominate our national conversation about immigration are misinformed, outdated, and harmful to those who live with its consequences daily. The political rhetoric from our nation’s leaders creates instability, fear, and psychological trauma in immigrants while simultaneously distorting the public’s perception of the issue. Research continues to show that immigrants make America stronger, enriching society, unifying communities, and bettering the economy. Dr. Castañeda’s work reminds us that looking ahead, we must demand from our lawmakers a change that is rooted in the recognition of these principles and the creation of dignified paths to citizenship.
As I reflect on my childhood and the little girl I was when I first arrived in America, I see no difference between myself and another little girl today arriving from El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Cuba, or Guatemala. We all carried the same fears of an unfamiliar place, the same uncertainty, the same dreams of a brighter, better future in this country. The only difference between the treatments we received was the country we came from and the political implications that country brought with it. It is time that we begin to approach immigration with greater empathy, remembering that we ourselves, or our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, once stood in these very same shoes. Latino immigrants have positively shaped this nation from the beginning of its history, and they continue to do so today. These facts are unmistakable, the human suffering is devastating, and the need for humane immigration reform has long been overdue.
Maria Muradyan is a senior at UCLA studying Political Science with a strong interest in American politics and public policy. She participated in UCLA’s UCDC program in Washington, DC. Her interests include immigration policy and community advocacy, with a particular emphasis on how political institutions and policy frameworks shape social and economic outcomes. Through her research and writing, Maria aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of contemporary policy debates and their real-world implications.
References
Castañeda, Ernesto (2025, November 21st), Personal Interview on Immigration.
Jamile Tellez Lieberman, Dsouza, N., Valdez, C. R., Pintor, J. K., Weisz, P., Carroll-Scott, A., & Martinez-Donate, A. P. (2024). Interior immigration enforcement experiences, perceived discrimination, and mental health of U.S.-citizen adolescents with Mexican immigrant parents. Journal of Latinx Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000263
Regarding the question of what is happening between the United States and Venezuela, the answer is that this is a partially unintended, unanticipated international focus at the end of the first year of Trump’s second term. While the governments of the U.S. and Venezuela have not been close for a while, this path opened up as other areas of intervention, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, got stuck at a standstill.
The potential intervention in Venezuela is not a popular option. There is little support among experts about its merits. Likewise, Venezuelans are not eager to go to war.
This was not a priority for Trump in the past. But three key members of his cabinet and White House staff have zeroed in on Venezuela in the last few months.
As an article in the Washington Post on December 18, 2025, explains convincingly by drawing from inside sources and visible actions, Steven Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor, and the main engine behind the aggressive anti-immigrant agenda, wanted to conduct military attacks in Mexico as another way to curb immigration, his long obsession. But as undocumented and asylum-seeker arrivals at the border have approached zero —in part thanks to Mexico’s role—, Miller looked further south.
Trump campaigned in the 2018 midterms and the 2020 elections, bashing MS-13 and Salvadoran immigration. But this time around, he found an ally in Salvadoran President Bukele. Other Central American governments have also collaborated, so he zoomed in on Venezuela through Tren de Aragua (TdA) as an excuse to expedite deportations. Tren de Aragua-related deportations to CECOT in El Salvador became a fiasco and highly unpopular, not to say unlawful. So, the administration moved to declaring the so-called Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as its supposed head. After targeting small boats off the shores of Latin America and the Caribbean, then the excuse became fighting drug trafficking and then to old claims on permits to exploit Venezuelan oil by Exxon-Mobil and other oil companies, without discarding the ideas of regime change as the support for Machado grew internationally, and as the Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, told Chris Whipple to get rid of Maduro, to put pressure on Venezuela until Maduro would give up or “call uncle.”
On the other hand, Marco Rubio—both National Security Advisor and the Secretary of State, which in other countries would be called Secretary of Foreign Affairs—has long had an obsession with the regime in Cuba, which he sees as related to Venezuela. This is partly because of the financial and oil support that Venezuela gave to Cuba for many years, which, although it continues—it seems that the first oil tanker that was seized was going from Venezuela to Cuba—though the Venezuela support is no longer the support it once was, and it’s not enough to help the Cuban regime, which is in deep economic trouble. Officials in Cuba see this as a move with them ultimately in mind.
Marco Rubio is especially interested in attacking the Cuban and Venezuelan regimes, and there is nobody left in the White House to contradict him, not Susie Wiles, as John Kelly would have done in the first Trump administration, to stop such a bad idea.
According to the Washington Post article mentioned before, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was happy to jump into the frenzy to protect his job following Signalgate. He was eager to prove himself, show “leadership,” and get more attention in the spotlight and ingratiate himself with Miller. So, he found the idea of bombing the small boats appealing, and he would probably like to lead a small incursion into Venezuela.
The objective is not truly drug trafficking. Most of the cocaine that reaches the United States doesn’t come from Venezuela. There are a few shipments that pass through Venezuela and then to the Caribbean; these drug shipments were going to other islands in the region, and perhaps some of that cocaine would eventually reach Europe, but very little reaches the United States. The Coast Guard has been in charge of seizing these vessels for many years, and the DEA could be conducting more formal investigations, so this idea of the drugs as the rationale to threaten Venezuela is not believable. The American people don’t believe it, and this new pseudo-label of “narco-terrorists” isn’t logically convincing either legally or at the logical or expert levels. Indeed, it seems that the administration is already giving up on that; also, with the pardon for the president of Honduras, the drug angle is less convincing. The contradiction remains, and they are rightly not going to attack Mexico or Colombia over the drug issue in the near future.
Things changed a bit with Maria Corina Machado’s visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize regarding democracy in Venezuela and regime change. And lately, there have been a few statements from Trump about the interests of U.S. oil companies in Venezuela. The U.S. oil lobby has been a key factor in Trump’s re-election. So, another goal is for U.S. oil companies to regain access to Venezuela, although there is already an American company doing business there: Chevron. So, this is not something of a priority. All this to say, there is no master strategy behind it.
It is partly a personal animosity between Trump and Maduro, evident in public declarations and supposed ideological differences, but the two governments have also had occasions when they handled structured negotiations very well. There have been instances of negotiations resulting in detained individuals returning from Venezuela to the United States, deportations with permission of Venezuelans from the United States, and then from El Salvador. So, it’s not that there has been a terrible personal relationship between Trump and Maduro or their intermediaries.
Marco Rubio’s obsession is the main driver. He has made recent public statements presenting new arguments and rationales, but they have seemed improvised and unconvincing. Even an overt, public declaration of a return to the Monroe Doctrine is not enough to justify this; it is mainly good news for Russia and China.
To justify an attack on Venezuela and the boats around the coasts, members of the Trump administration have claimed that they wanted to combat terrorism, foreign enemies in the American war on terror, to accelerate deportations, but they still haven’t been able to win that mediatic battle or the legal or logical argument, but they have not done so not even in the local or federal courts. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t stopped them either.
Steven Miller is mainly interested in the idea of a war with Venezuela or with someone else, as a pretext to push through certain laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act and the Insurrection Act, both of which require the U.S. to be at war to be invoked. But this is not even necessary to continue with the mass deportations as they have been. They are deporting many people. Detaining people, they are practically at war with immigrant-based communities, though they are violating human rights and constitutional protections within the country. A declaration of war would not change that reality or make it any more appealing to citizens.
It is very clear that the majority of the American public opinion, even part of the MAGA base, is against the U.S. getting directly involved in any new war. They would be against an invasion or bombing of Venezuela, whether prolonged or even for a short period. It would be more difficult to stop something like an Iran-type one-targeted bombing situation, but removing Maduro probably wouldn’t be as quick or simple.
So, the American people are quite against an intervention in Venezuela. Furthermore, as we see with the debates surrounding the small fishing boats, critics, including legislators in the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans, see these bombings of ships off the Latin American coasts as extralegal. They are putting a lot of pressure on the Pentagon to release the videos showing the killing of two survivors, and to either stop this type of operation, to explain what is happening, and if the intention is to engage in war, then, to make the case to Congress of why the U.S. needs to wage a war, on what basis, and with what objective.
All indicates it would not be something Congress would easily approve. Trying to get the Republicans in Congress to do that could cost some of them their seats in 2026. So, it’s a war, a strategy without rhyme or reason, hence the clear disorder. Venezuela is very worried about Trump’s pronouncements, but their aimlessness is nothing new. So, no one knows what’s going to happen, not even the Pentagon, which has deployed elements that are not sufficient for sustained ground intervention, though they are spending a lot of money bringing the ships there.
They thought military mobilization would be enough to intimidate Maduro, but it obviously hasn’t been. The Nobel Prize hype around Machado has already passed, and it hasn’t changed anything on the ground. The Venezuelan diaspora is asking for military intervention, but that is not enough. Understandably, from their point of view and personal experiences, they are asking Trump to do something. Those who are more established, have money, and have been here for a while, are still upset they were forced to leave. But the more recent Venezuelan migrants who came here seeking asylum after the pandemic are being denied asylum, their work permits revoked, and deported. So that is also a contradiction about Venezuela supposedly being a narco-state. So, the whole armed intimidation of Venezuela is bullying to the extreme, but it is incoherent as foreign policy.
The majority in the United States are against this war in Venezuela and the attacks on the small boats, oil tankers, and the possibility of bombings or military action. Contrary to what some in the White House bubble seem to believe, a war with Venezuela would not be enough to distract from the economic and political situation in the U.S. It would not totally change the narrative, help speed deportations to what would become a war zone, and the attempts to further concentrate power on the executive could be more directly opposed by the legislative branch which is the one supposed to declare and fund wars. The oil tanker confiscations and chases are just the latest in a series of policies in which the administration’s words, threats, and actions are not enough to scare Maduro or convince the public of the righteousness of these actions.
Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University, Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed are his alone.
How the Private Immigration Detention Industry Functions and Thrives in the US
By Tazreena Sajjad, PhD and Jack Spehn
The United States is home to the oldest and largest immigration detention system in North America and arguably, in the world. As of June 24, 2025, approximately 59,000 immigrants are being detained across the country under the jurisdiction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration law within the United States, with roughly 46,000 being detained on an average day since January 26. These numbers, significant as they are, are still notably below the Trump administration’s April claim that the government had “surpassed the entirety of Fiscal Year 2024” in immigration enforcement, with over 151,000 arrests and 135,000 deportations. As of late June, ICE’s detention level is at over 140% capacity.
Furthermore, despite the claims that these arrests —and even the most recent travel ban on 19 countries and counting— are a response to a dangerous invasion and a threat to the US, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that the vast number of detained immigrants present a “clear and present danger” to either US national security interests or to the American public. In fact, approximately 47% of those currently detained by ICE lack a criminal record, and less than 30% have been convicted of crimes that constitute minor offenses, including traffic violations. Meanwhile, the immigration detention business is only slated to expand – the new budget (OBBBA) approved by Congressional Republicans has allocated $45 billion for the construction of new immigrant detention centers alone, including facilities for family detention.
A growing number of immigrants are being incarcerated in the US in the private immigration detention industry, on which the US government increasingly relies for immigration enforcement. In recent years, it is estimated that as many as 90% of ICE detainees in the US have been incarcerated in facilities operated by private immigration detention companies.
The discussion below provides an overview of the US immigration detention system’s growing reliance on the private sector, the extent to which these companies continue to derive enormous profits from immigration imprisonment, and how they navigate the US political landscape. Despite widespread allegations and documentation of abuse in these private detention centers, the industry continues to generate significant profits and thrive on support from different public and private actors.
Understanding US Immigration Detention
In the US, immigration detention refers to the federal government’s ongoing practice of confining individuals in a range of facilities for violating immigration law. Confinement may last the duration of an individual’s immigration proceedings and, in certain situations, even after their immigration proceedings have been completed. While lacking a current immigration status is a civil violation and immigration detention under the law should be “nonpunitive and preventative,” many of its aspects are indiscernible from criminal incarceration. Detained immigrants are incarcerated in prisons and prison-like facilities; required to wear government-issued uniforms and wristbands with identifying information at all times; and have highly regimented lives under constant surveillance. Detainees are also subjected to discipline and segregation, with very limited access or contact with the world outside. Furthermore, immigrant detainees do not receive the same legal protections as criminal defendants, i.e., they do not have the right to government-appointed counsel. They also do not have the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, nor are they protected from the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Over the past several decades, changes in the federal immigration enforcement policy paved the way for an expansive rise in detention rates. For instance, in 1973, the U.S. government detained a daily average of 2,370 migrants and increased to 5,532 by 1994. By 2009, the numbers had surged to 34,000; by 2019, the numbers had risen to a record 55,000.
What is clearly notable in these numbers is that since the 1990s, the US immigration policy has relied extensively on detention as a primary means of immigration enforcement. The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act increased the incarceration of U.S. citizens, particularly the Black population. In addition, the 1996 enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) ushered in a new era of U.S. immigration detention. Succinctly, these two latter laws not only broadened the types of criminal offenses that could trigger removal proceedings but also expanded the categories of noncitizens — including legal permanent residents — who could be detained without the possibility of release pending the completion of their removal proceedings, and even be subjected to deportation.
Following 9/11, immigration transformed into a national security concern, evidenced by the US Patriot Act, conflating terrorism with the arrival of people at US shores, while drawing on long-standing anti-immigrant sentiments and rhetoric. Under President George W. Bush, the immigration system underwent dramatic changes with Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) being replaced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which housed all these agencies. DHS’ 2003 Operation Endgame used ICE to detain and deport all “removable aliens by 2012” –possibly the largest police operation in US history– was particularly instrumental in expanding immigration detention and deportation. During Obama’s presidency, the implementation of the detention bed quota (later removed in 2017) and the expansion of deportation programs such as the Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program resulted in thousands of immigrants being incarcerated in detention centers. Following the significant number of Central American arrivals in 2014, immigration detention —particularly family detention— expanded further.
Under the first Trump administration, the deportation dragnet became more extensive with increasing number of 278 g agreements – which allow for state and local law enforcement to work collaboratively for “protecting the homeland” – subsequent community raids, elimination of policies that prioritized detention and deportation of “criminal immigrants,” mandatory detention, and a skyrocketing detention budget that produced a growing system of mass incarceration. In FY 2019 alone, the detention system held more than 500,000 immigrants.
President Biden further funded the increase in the number of detention beds, broadened the 287(g) program, and pursued new and expanded detention facility contracts. Biden’s 2021 executive order directing the Department of Justice to phase out its contracts with private prison companies did include ICE contracts, since the agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Indeed, at the beginning of Biden’s presidency, there were fewer than 15,000 in ICE detention, yet the FY2024 spending bill he signed just a few years later provided funding to detain a daily average of 41,500 immigrants. While years of local organizing to end ICE contracts bore fruit along with the growth of pro-immigrant state legislation in multiple places like Irwin County, Georgia, the pipeline to detention has consequently grown, largely as a result of arrested migrants funneled through border apprehensions.
The Private Immigration Detention Industry: Growth and Expansion
The private detention industry plays a critical role in enabling immigration detention in the US. In August 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that more than 9 out of 10 immigrant detainees were held in private prison facilities. Such corporations argue that private prisons are important in immigration management due to their cost-effectiveness, increased safety, and the humane treatment of inmates. In particular, GEO Group and CoreCivic (formerly the Corrections Corporation of America) are two companies responsible for the largest number of private immigration detention facilities in the country. Since the early 1980s, both companies have played a significant role in dominating the private prison industry to satisfy the growing demand for prisons. With the shrinking of the prison population in recent years, GEO Group and CoreCivic adapted their prison facilities to incarcerate noncriminal immigrants in the civil immigration system. In 2020, CoreCivic and GEO Group held half of all ICE detainees while bringing in billions of dollars in revenue through ICE detention contracts. As of December 31, 2024, CoreCivic operated 69 correctional, detention, and reentry facilities domestically, with a total capacity of roughly 76,000 beds. As of the same date, the GEO Group operated 99 facilities worldwide in 2024, with a total capacity of approximately 79,000 beds, the majority of which are located in the US.
The use of private immigration detention companies is by no means limited to Republican administrations; Democratic administrations have also increasingly relied on this industry for immigration enforcement. In fact, in July 2023, more than 90 percent of the average 30,000 people held daily in ICE detention were housed in private facilities.
The profit margins of the most prominent private detention centers have also been notable. From 2000 to 2020, the combined annual revenue of just the GEO Group and CoreCivic rose from well under half a billion dollars to around $4.5 billion. In 2022, GEO Group, which operates internationally as well as domestically, had $1.05 billion in revenue —43.9% of its total revenue from ICE contracts alone. This included $408 million, a significant 17%, on programs involving electronic monitoring of immigrants. In the same year, CoreCivic made $552.2 million (i.e., 30% of its total revenue) from ICE detention contracts. For FY 2023, the US Congress also appropriated $2.9 billion dollars to hold 34,000 people in ICE detention each day.
In 2024, CoreCivic reported a total revenue of $2 billion, up from $1.9 billion in 2023. A little over $1 billion came from federal contracts. Revenues from ICE totaled $564.8 million in 2024, and $565.5 million in 2023. Meanwhile, GEO Group reported consolidated revenues of roughly $2.4 billion in 2024, 91% of which came from domestic contracts. ICE accounted for 41.5% of the company’s total 2024 revenues.
Both CoreCivic and GEO Group state plainly that their ability to grow is dependent on their ability to secure contracts to develop and manage new facilities. In turn, ICE has a heavy reliance on these private companies and their subcontractors.
Photograph of a CoreCivic Detention Center by Patrick Feller. Retrieved from Flickr.
The second Trump administration, with its overt commitment to an anti-immigrant agenda and increase in detention and deportations, has continued to be a boon for the private immigration detention industry. ICE plans to spend as much as $45 billion over the next two years on immigration detention. CoreCivic, in its end-of-2024 financial disclosures, stated “[we] expect demand from the federal government for our correctional and detention facilities to increase under the new presidential administration, particularly from ICE, as a result of anticipated changes in immigration policy.” Meanwhile, GEO Group said, “[we] continue to be encouraged by the current landscape of growth opportunities” and are “preparing for what we believe is an unprecedented opportunity…” Their excitement is evidently shared by their investors; both companies’ stock prices increased dramatically in the aftermath of the November 2024 election and remain well above their average pre-election value.
Questions for the Private Immigration Industry
The U.S. private immigration detention industry —like the private prison industrial complex— has long thrived based on the argument that its existence is necessary to reduce the costs of incarceration to state and federal correctional agencies and the burden on taxpayers. In fact, privatized companies have cut corners, such as reducing basic facilities for detainees and cutting back on their wages, in order to deliver on their promise of cutting government costs while maximizing profits for their shareholders.
While these measures may deliver in the short run, existing research shows they are far more likely to be more expensive in the long run. In addition to the reduction of services and reduced wages that negatively impact imprisoned immigrants, the U.S. immigration detention has long continued to be subject to intense scrutiny for human rights abuses, including verbal and physical assault, sexual harassment, insufficient food and nutrition provision, mistreatment of marginalized communities, insufficient access to medical care, negligence, lack of transparency and accountability alleged by many detainees. In May 2024, a group of U.S. Senators wrote to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE about “well-documented horrific conditions, such as ‘yellow drinking water,’ forced sleep deprivation, prolonged solitary confinement, inadequate medical care, limited access to legal counsel, and violent retaliation against those who complain.” A joint report by the ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, and American Oversight found that 49 out of 52 deaths during detention ICE reported between January 2017 and December 2021 were “preventable or possibly preventable if appropriate medical care had been provided.” In certain cases reviewed in the report, medical staff vacancies and other health care deficiencies were found to have contributed to deaths. Groups such as Human Rights Watch have also documented multiple instances of substandard medical practices, including “unreasonable delays, poor practitioner and nursing care, and botched emergency response,” contributing to deaths in both publicly- and privately-operated facilities. Government oversight and regulatory bodies have consistently failed to anticipate, mitigate, identify, and rectify the conditions that enable such abuses.
Private Immigration Detention Companies’ Successful Navigation of Criticisms
During President Obama’s time in office, the 2016 Inspector General report led to a directive to phase out private prisons, causing the stocks of private detention firms to tumble. However, this trend did not translate into significant economic damage for the private immigration detention industry or dampen enthusiasm for its existence. Instead, companies such as Geo Group and Core Civic, continued to develop and expand their public lobby efforts, including making donations to political campaigns. CoreCivic spent $3.7 million in lobbying throughout 2014 and 2015, with nearly $2 million in additional political donations. During Trump’s first presidential run for office, GEO Group donated US$100,000 to his 2016 campaign, and CoreCivic made large contributions to support his inaugural activities. Following President Trump’s 2016 electoral win, both firms’ stocks soared. Soon after, Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Obama directive, citing concern that it would impair “the Bureau’s ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system.” In 2017, Texas State Representative John Raney told the Associated Press that a GEO Group lobbyist directly authored legislation that sought to lower childcare standards for private detention centers and extend the amount of time immigrant children could be detained.
Political contributions and lobbying funds remained high throughout the Biden administration. In 2022, GEO Group reported spending more than $4 million on political contributions and $3.1 million on lobbying expenditures, while CoreCivic cited more than $1 million in political contributions and $2.2 million in lobbying fees. Existing research suggests a possible connection between the political contributions made by these companies and their sponsorship of legislation in Congress that benefits the private detention industry. Their methods of influence can also take less overt forms. For example, the contracts these companies sign with governments often include “mandatory minimum” provisions, which guarantee payment for a set number of beds and thus create a financial incentive for governments to fill these spaces. A January 2021 review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “ICE has increasingly incorporated guaranteed minimum payments into its contracts and agreements … [but] has not taken a strategic approach to these decisions and has spent millions of dollars a month on unused detention space. Some immigrant rights groups have argued that this creates a waste of resources and a financial incentive to keep more immigrants detained within private facilities.
In 2023 alone, CoreCivic reported $983,250 in total political contributions and approximately $2 million in total direct lobbying expenditures at the federal, state, and local levels. In February 2025, GEO Group, along with its associated political action committee, reported a total of $4.02 million in political contributions alongside $3.97 million in direct lobbying expenditures. The company states that their efforts “are focused on promoting the benefits of public-private partnerships in the delivery of support services for secure facilities and processing centers…”, but that they “have not advocated for or against … criminal justice or immigration enforcement policies, such as whether to criminalize behavior, the length of criminal sentences, or the basis for or length of an individual’s incarceration or detention.” CoreCivic also reported donating half a million dollars to the Trump-Vance inaugural committee in December 2024. CoreCivic states that its lobbying efforts are “designed to educate” government officials about “the benefits of partnership corrections”, and that they avoid advocating “for or against policies or legislation that would determine the basis for or duration of an individual’s incarceration or detention.”
Conclusion
The United States’ growing reliance on the private immigration detention industry has little to do with the country’s national security interests or protecting the American public; but it has consistently been about maximizing the profit margin through the imprisonment of some immigrants with criminal records, but many undocumented immigrants, asylum-seekers, and even lawful permanent residents. Existing research has repeatedly underscored that the private immigration detention system is costly and unsafe, and in several instances, in violation of U.S. and international human rights laws. Yet, the system persists, bolstered by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Under President Trump’s second term, the anti-immigrant agenda has ushered in a time of even more ICE raids, detention, deportation, violent family separations, and human rights violations. All of this leads to a more extensive reliance on private detention centers, which stand to benefit financially from these incarcerations, so much so that CoreCivic’s CEO Damon Hininger describes the present times as “truly one of the most exciting periods in my career.”
President Donald Trump’s executive orders surrounding immigration have sparked fear amongst marginalized groups and controversy amid those who hold America’s policy process dear. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship order which proposes the end to birthright citizenship. Although several judges have blocked the order and several other lawsuits have been filed, this specific executive order has caused concerns surrounding the integrity of the Constitution.
One major issue with Trump’s birthright citizenship order is his interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While he recognizes that the 14th amendment was originally intended to extend citizenship to formally enslaved African Americans during Reconstruction, his argument misinterprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” In this order, a mother’s and father’s immigration status at the time of birth determines if a federal department or agency can grant or recognized documents recognizing the United States citizenship of their child. However, there is no recent legal precedent supporting the use of a parent’s citizenship status to determine if a person born within the United States is a proper interpretation of the Amendment or any immigration law. Although Trump acknowledges the historical context in which the 14th Amendment was written, his interpretation would not be applicable to historical context Trump is supposedly intending to preserve. Ironically, Trump’s call for a stricter interpretation of the 14th Amendment calls into question how case law has broadened our understanding of how we view citizenship, even for corporations, which the law considers “artificial people” [see Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. Railroad, 188 U.S. 394 (1886);Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 588 U.S. 310 (2010)].
As a result of this Executive Order and many other policies which have led to the recent increase in ICE activity around the nation. President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador proposed a deal with the Trump Administration to allow for the United States to transport both deportees and imprisoned U.S. citizens to El Salvador for a fee. Despite some praise of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele’s “tough on crime” approach, this deal raises concerns about the conditions of these prisons. Since 2020, organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported on the lack of due process, deaths under custody, and living conditions that are below international standards. Although American immigration law would allow El Salvador to accept deportees in an instance in which a deportee returning to their country of origin is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” those factors are not the basis of President’s Bukele’s offer. Likewise, the deportation of American citizens in unconstitutional and violates the rights of incarcerated people. Nonetheless, on April 8, 2025, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt affirmed that President Trump discussed the possibility and legality of deporting American citizens deemed “violent repeat offenders.”
The offer to accept American prisoners further cements the controversial slave status placed upon incarcerated people in the United States and El Salvador. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery except for punishment for a crime within the United States and territories within its control. This manifests as the use of prison labor in both the public and private sector in exchange for pennies an hour. Similarly, Salvadoran prisoners make use of prison labor through their Cero Ocio program where prisoners were used to renovate schools, hospitals, and police headquarters under the guise of rehabilitation of prisons. Through this deal, El Salvador is on pace to economically benefit from accepting deportees and American prisoners in exchange for a fee as well as potentially increasing their prison labor force in a system reminiscent of slavery.
The relationship between the Trump Administration and El Salvador has already manifested into negative consequences for deportees and documented immigrants. Despite a U.S. District Judge ordering a temporary halt of the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, the flight continued anyway. This decision to disregard the order was a move cosigned by President Bukele on his official X account. Furthermore, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a permanent resident living in Maryland was deported to El Salvador due to an “administrative error” and his return is being delayed due to pending litigation.
Trump’s birthright Executive Order and El Salvador’s proposal should be cause for concern for everyone regardless of immigration or citizenship status. These actions serve as a reminder of the Trump administration’s total disregard for the law and that solidarity is necessary for preserving human rights. Marking undocumented people and incarcerated citizens as undesirable leads us to overlook the harm being done and what is to come if we do not speak out against it.
Caryalyn Jean is a Research Assistant at The Immigration Lab at American University
Latina-owned business in Columbia Heights, Washington DC. Credit: Elizabeth Albro
Building upon its previous research on Latino entrepreneurship, with the generous support of the Wells Fargo Foundation, AU’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies recently launched a project to assess the effectiveness of community development financial institutions (CDFIs) for Latino small businesses in the DC-metro region. CDFIs provide bespoke financial services and investment capital to underserved communities, and the economic crisis caused by the pandemic highlighted their crucial role as bridging institutions connecting minority small businesses with the resources they needed to stay afloat. But how have CDFIs gone about their work since the pandemic?
Together with our community partner, the Greater Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, we surveyed representatives of CDFIs throughout our region to better understand how they interact with Latino business owners, but also post-pandemic challenges in doing so, as they seek to support this increasingly important community for our region’s economy. Here we report on preliminary results that show how the effectiveness of CDFIs depends upon their greater attention not just to the specific needs of Latino small business owners but also to the social and cultural circumstances, and communities, within which these small businesses operate.
CDFI’s have been a source of inspiration and innovation when it comes to engaging sometimes hard-to-reach minority small business owners. These include pioneering the use of cohort models when providing assistance, as a way to build peer relationships and support a more networked community of minority business owners. They also include the use of equity impact scorecards to help weigh disparities when evaluating eligibility for business loans. They further encompass a more strategic use of microloans and sustained efforts to rethink traditional risk evaluation systems, which have served as barriers to entrance for minority start-ups. But the role of CDFI’s as critical mediators between minority business owners and the formal financial system remains underappreciated.
Latinos are an increasingly important part of the U.S. economy, primarily through business ownership and job creation. They continue to start businesses at a faster rate than any other group, and are projected to be almost a third of business owners by 2050. But, despite comparable liquidity, credit risk and default rates, when compared with counterparts, Latino small businesses encounter more obstacles accessing capital for start-up, growth, and to survive downturns. They are, for example, 60 percent less likely than White-owned businesses to be approved for a bank loan. This disparity is a major contributor to the long-standing racial wealth gap among small business owners in the U.S.
Recent economic disruptions have also highlighted the greater vulnerability of Latino businesses. Less than half of Latino immigrants nationwide have a relationship with a bank. With less access to lending institutions, Latino business owners have relied disproportionately on personal funds, home equity, and informal social networks, leaving them more financially exposed in times of crisis. The Pew Research Center reported that Latino household wealth fell 66 percent as a result of the 2008 Great Recession, the largest decrease among any group.
During Covid-19, Latino business owners struggled to access capital to weather the pandemic. If more likely to seek funds, they were less likely to receive them from private lending sources. The Small Business Administration reported a success rate of 7 percent for Latino-owned businesses who applied to receive Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds provided by the federal CARES Act in 2020, compared to 83 percent for White-owned enterprises. In 2021 the Federal Reserve reported that Latino businesses were less than half as likely as White-owned businesses to receive a PPP loan. Such disparities highlight the urgency to understand the factors that continue to limit Latino asset building, and to identify successful alternatives for engaging Latino small businesses.
Overall, survey responses prioritized the bridging function of CDFIs. On the one hand, representatives of CDFIs emphasized the importance of not simply understanding the specific concerns of Latino business owners, but also the need to be actively present “in the community.” This included, as one respondent put it, “hyper local knowledge,” not just about specific industry sectors, socioeconomic status or tax rates, but about extra-financial social contexts impacting Latino business success, such as new immigration policies or incipient gentrification in a given neighborhood.
Being “in the community” encompassed the necessity of meeting business owners “where they are at.” Respondents emphasized strategies of direct personal contact, such as texting over email, the importance of “personal visits” to places of business, providing information in Spanish, access to bilingual financial professionals, use of social media platforms popular with Latinos, and outreach through Spanish-language media. This extended to attending family and other local celebrations, and was about “establishing trust” with a group, Latino small business owners, often suspicious of formal institutions. One takeaway is that CDFIs illustrate the need for lending institutions to adopt a more expansively encompassing approach to culturally informed “community engagement,” as a core competency of their work with minority small businesses.
On the other hand, respondents repeatedly emphasized that throughout the pandemic, and going forward, it has been challenging to make Latino business owners aware of their financial assistance options. For many, this boils down to a pervasive lack of “financial literacy.” Microenterprises and small businesses often do not keep adequate records and do not maintain basic financial management and accounting practices, which make it hard for them to provide the necessary documentation to qualify for grants or loans. Much of what CDFI staff spends their time doing is helping business owners “put their financial house in order.” Overcoming such informality remains a major challenge. If CDFIs are critical conduits connecting Latino small business owners to formal financial institutions, a second takeaway is the need to offer basic financial literacy assistance further upstream, prior to the business start-up phase, perhaps in coordination with immigrant-serving nonprofits and conceived as one among a set of core wraparound services.
This research project highlights the critical role played by CDFIs in connecting Latino small business owners with resources for success, but also bridging informal and formal dimensions of business practice, and often underserved minority communities with local and regional small business ecosystems. In our current environment, where federal funds supporting the work of CDFIs are under threat, it is increasingly important to bring attention to their value.
*The research for this post was made possible by a grant from the Wells Fargo Foundation. We thank Victor Burrola, who leads Wells Fargo’s philanthropy in the Greater Washington DC region, for his support throughout.
On March 1st, 2025, President Trump passed Executive Order 14224 making English the official language of the United States; this decision will undoubtedly have profound societal effects, further marginalizing migrant communities and diminishing multiculturalism in the U.S. By examining this order alongside a summary of “Immigrants Want to, and Do, Learn the Local Language,” Chapter Four of Immigration Realities: Challenging Common Misconceptions by Ernesto Castañeda and Carina Cione, it is possible to see how this action will affect the lives of millions across the U.S.
This Executive Order revokes President Clinton’s 2000 policy requiring language assistance for non-English speakers. Executive Order 13166 (“Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”) helped non-native speakers access essential services, including government documents, healthcare forms, and voting materials, and its absence could leave millions without access to these vital resources. The dynamics of language barriers are rooted in both historical and contemporary struggles faced by immigrants in the U.S, and Clinton’s 2000 policy was designed to ensure that non-English speakers could access government services without facing language-based discrimination. Trump’s order frames English as central to a cohesive American identity, which is inherently multifaceted and complex.
Supporters of this recent order argue that designating one language will improve the efficiency of government operations and promote national unity. However, this change can have serious consequences, especially for immigrant communities who rely on translated government materials for essential services. With over 68 million U.S. residents speaking a language other than English at home, Executive Order 14224 threatens to further marginalize a significant portion of the population both through limited required accessibility to government services and further reinforcement of misconceptions about migrants’ desire and ability to learn English.
As Castañeda and Cione’s book highlights, the challenges non-English speakers are far more complex than they appear. Many immigrants, especially those from Latin America, face significant social, economic, and legal barriers to learning English. Even with sufficient economic means, access to language education varies by region and available free time. Discrimination adds another layer of difficulty, with nearly half of Hispanic immigrants feeling judged for their English abilities. As a result of various obstacles, many are left isolated and unable to fully integrate into American society. A policy that systematically and socially upholds English as the only possible standard for success will only worsen these challenges.
Language assimilation is further complicated when considering the gendered challenges of language learning. Immigrant women, particularly in Latino communities, often face more difficulty learning English due to domestic pressures, cultural expectations, and fears of discrimination. This reinforces cycles of economic and social marginalization, as women are often left without the tools to access better opportunities.
Language barriers can have serious consequences for mental and physical health, leading to stress, isolation, and even misdiagnosis in healthcare settings. It is vital to uphold and validate the multicultural realities of the U.S. in all spaces and having that upheld in government accessibility is a crucial part of inclusion. Lack of support for bilingualism and multicultural identity can lead second and third generation migrants to lose contact with their linguistic and cultural heritage, which has proven to be harmful to community health and well-being. The executive order’s reduction of language assistance programs will only worsen disparities and perpetuate negative perceptions of multilingualism in the U.S.
The implications of Executive Order 14224 are clear: it risks exacerbating the social and economic divides between English-speaking citizens and immigrants. While the goal of national unity is important, the needs of non-English speakers should not be overlooked. If the federal government reduces its support for language assistance, vulnerable immigrant populations will face even greater challenges in accessing essential services, deepening existing inequalities. Policymakers must consider the long-term impact of such decisions on social cohesion and the well-being of all citizens, regardless of language and background.
Sophia Robinson is a Research Assistant at the Center for Latin American & Latino Studies at American University
USCIS Application Support Center, retrieved from wikimedia
A memorandum was issued on February 14 by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) acting Director Andrew Davidson that has effectively paused all pending immigration applications filed by migrants already living in the United States. The USCIS cited fraud and security concerns as the reasons for the halt, and the application freeze will remain in place indefinitely as government officials investigate and identify potential fraud cases
Thousands of Migrants Left in Limbo
Changes announced by the Trump administration directly impact a number of migrants, including from Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Ukraine, who have received legal entry and stay in the United States from categorical parole programs established under the Biden administration. Among them includes beneficiaries under Uniting for Ukraine, created in 2022 to provide Ukrainian citizens fleeing from Russia’s invasion legal entry to the United States. Applicants under the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela (CHNV) Parole Program are also affected. Initiated in 2023, this humanitarian parole program allowed nationals from these countries to seek stability and refuge in the U.S. In the first six months of the program, nearly 160,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully under this legal process. The latest data from USCIS shows that in December 2024, right before Trump’s inauguration, 27,340 migrants arrived in the United States with parole grants.
Applicants under the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) Program will also be affected. This program was made to reunite eligible individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and Haiti with family in the United as they wait for a family-based green card. It was created, in part, to discourage migrants from making dangerous crossings at the southern border by instead offering a legal migration pathway.
Lastly, those who have pending applications for Temporary Protective Status (TPS) from certain countries, including Haiti, Ukraine, and Venezuela, will also be impacted. The TPS program allows individuals to seek protection in the United States from ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary conditions. A TPS designation can be granted in 6, 12, or 18 months increments and recipients will need to re-register to keep their protection. However, Venezuelan and Ukrainian beneficiaries have had their protections extended until October 2025, while Haitian beneficiaries are covered through February 2026. As of March of 2024, there were 863,800 people living in the U.S. with TPS.
Legal Pathways Shut Down, Deportation Risks Rise
The programs previously mentioned provide work permits, travel authorization, protection from deportation, and legal migration channels to individuals from designated countries seeking a better life away from persecution and poverty or to reunite with family members in the U.S. However, under this policy shift, officials will no longer process any pending applications for these programs. Effectively, impeding applicants’ ability to transition to another legal status and making them vulnerable to deportation from the country.
In just his first month in office, President Trump has deported 37,660 people, and this number is expected to rise in the coming months due to the halts on the programs above that leave those already in the U.S. without legal status. It is evident that while Trump aggressively targets undocumented immigrants, he also has little regard for those who arrive under excruciating circumstances through legal migration processes.
Valeria Chaconis a research assistant with the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University in Washington, DC
The United States is where migrants come for that golden opportunity. To live a better life. To work, to be safe, to get an education. But once one leaves “La Jaula de Oro,” (“The Golden Cage”) they can’t return. All they have might be a green or red card, or maybe no card at all.
The U.S. has a visa program for temporary workers in “specialty occupations” called the H1-B visas. During Trump’s first term, he claimed the H1-B visa program was “very, very, bad for workers” and Suspended the H1-B visa program in 2020. Trump has switched his stance on H1-B visas, claiming “it’s a great program.” After Elon Musk showed his support for H-1B visas, nothing has happened to support H-1B Visas meaning we might still see the reform that was outlined in Project 2025 to make the program ‘better.’
Other types of visa programs might be affected within the next couple of months, student visas, and visas for survivors of human trafficking and other crimes. Another program that is getting attacked is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). All visas get a card and DACA gets a work permit card. Just another card to keep ahold of.
A migrant factory worker from Chicago said, “I have been waiting for my daughter to turn 21 so I can get my green card.” This working migrant applied to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV) 15 years ago and is still waiting for a Green Card. The DV program is a lottery. In 2023, the DV program had nearly 9.6 million qualified entries and only 50 thousand recipients.
The cost of green cards is already so high, that the filing cost for a family-based green card is approximately 3 thousand dollars for an applicant applying from within the United States. Other categories of green cards may have different costs depending on which one the person is aiming for, not including legal service fees. For DACA it costs $555 to renew online. The most expenses being EB-5 visas, which are for foreign investors that has made investments within the United States around one million dollars and created 10 permanent full-time jobs. For these pathways are not accessible to everyone due to the cost. While some immigrants may not have green cards, visas, or DACA, one thing that they might have are Red Cards ━which can make a difference in whether a person stays in the U.S. or gets deported. Red Cards were made back in 2007 by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Red cards are used to protect undocumented immigrants from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They can come in 19 different languages, including Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Tagalog.
Photo of the front and back of a Red Card by Anthony Sandoval
Trump’s “Border Czar,” Tom Homan stated, “For instance, Chicago—very well-educated, they’ve been educated on how to defy ICE, how to hide from ICE.”
On February 25th, President Trump talked about a new type of pathway to citizenship, he calls it a Gold Card. For years, many groups have been asking for an improved way for citizenship or an easier way to come into the United States. The answer was simple: a card that’s worth five million dollars. Ask your friends and family to help cover the cost. It’s that simple… but few people have that type of money. This new card is for investors. The gold card would just replace the EB-5 program.
We don’t need this. Not a 5 million dollar pathway that very few people can pay for. We need another way for citizenship, another way to come into the United States, a faster program that allows people to get green cards and not wait for years. We must remember these people are not “aliens;” they are people. One action that can help is supporting the Dream & Promise Act of 2025 that offers some DACA recipients, immigrant youth, Temporary Protected Status holders, and Deferred Enforced Departure holders a pathway to citizenship.
Anthony Sandoval is a research assistant with the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab at American University in Washington, DC.
Edited by Katheryn Olmos, Ana Gaston, and Ernesto Castañeda,
.png/:/rs=w:1280)
.png/:/rs=w:1280)
AULA Blog 
