Days after federal corruption charges against him were dropped, Mayor Eric Adams appears poised to open New York City to President Trump’s mass deportation agenda in what Manhattan’s federal attorney described as a “quid pro quo”. Mr. Adams’ posturing has hinted at this for some time: the mayor has framed the recent influx of asylum-seeking migrants as an economic burden that “will destroy New York City.” “The long-term consequences have yet to materialize of what this crisis will do to our cities,” he told Tucker Carlson on January 22nd.
After crunching the numbers, we agree with Mr. Adams: New York City is just beginning to reap the benefits of this influx of hardworking people. We conservatively estimate that, if their earnings and employment rates are similar to the current undocumented population, the 316,000 asylum seekers who have come here since 2022 will contribute $8.62 billion annually to the city’s economy, a figure greater than the GDP of forty countries. Much of this economic activity will flow to public coffers: the asylum seeker population is projected to pay $942 million more in taxes than they receive in benefits each year. If ICE is allowed to wreak havoc on New York City, all these benefits will be lost.
This is not particularly surprising. Previous waves of immigrants have similarly fled desperate situations, arrived with limited resources, faced nativist backlash, and still become vital contributors to the city’s economy and culture. There’s no reason to believe today’s newcomers should be any different. With New York’s US-born population declining and demand for workers growing fastest in the industries most reliant on immigrant labor, they are arriving at an opportune time.
It’s true that New York City has spent substantial amounts on services for asylum seekers: a combined $5.2 billion in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, with another $4.5 billion budgeted for FY2025. These costs doubtless been have been inflated by Adams’ “emergency” decision to suspend background checks and competitive bidding requirements for contractors providing such services. The Comptroller’s investigation found several egregious examples of overpayment. One contractor received $117/hour for security guards and $201/hour for off-site managers. Despite this waste, spending on asylum seekers made up just 4.2% of the FY2025 budget.
Most importantly, these costs are not the product of an “open border.” Immigrants have been coming to New York City via the border for decades. In fact, the city’s undocumented population was 611,000 in 2012 and fell to 412,000 by 2022. Nor is the scale of the current influx unusual in recent times–during the 1990s, the city’s foreign-born population grew at a higher annual rate than it has during the 2020s.
Each wave of immigration to New York City has been beneficial to both the immigrants themselves and their adopted city. The only difference today is that arcane policies have forced both sides to make major upfront investments before they begin to enjoy those mutual benefits.
Before claiming asylum, people must physically come to the US. For nearly all the asylum seekers we spoke with as part of our ongoing study, this involved taking on substantial debt to finance a deadly, months-long overland journey. This debt can be a major obstacle as people try to establish themselves in New York.
In 2023, John borrowed nearly $30,000 to bring his family of five from Ecuador to the US border. A mechanic by trade, he quickly found work repairing e-bikes at a workshop in Queens, earning $1,200 a week. Yet over half of each paycheck goes to repaying his creditors back home (who have threatened to kill his parents should he miss a payment), leaving him unable to afford rent and trapping his family in the shelter system. He says he’ll have paid off enough debt to move to an apartment in New Jersey in three months.
Lacking a sponsor in the US, crossing the border was John’s only way to come here. Leave aside, for a moment, your beliefs about whether doing so was morally correct. The fact is, he’s here and contributing to our economy. Had he been able to come directly from Quito to New York, his spending power would be going to New York businesses instead of human smugglers.
Another problem: after applying for asylum, people must wait 180 days before receiving a work permit. Unless they have connections to support them, this effectively forces people to live off the state for six months. In practice, our conversations have made clear, it’s often much longer. In 2023, New York City began limiting stays in any one shelter to 60 days, forcing people to shuffle between different facilities. Many migrants are not informed that failing to report this change of address to USCIS within 10 days is a misdemeanor and can delay or derail their ability to get documents.
The experience of Carlos, who we spoke to outside a Manhattan shelter, exemplifies the bureaucratic absurdities that hold migrants back. Bused to NYC in late 2023 as part of Operation Lone Star, he immediately applied for asylum, citing political persecution in Venezuela. While waiting for his work permit, he has bounced between different shelters and worked temporary construction and moving gigs. He says his lack of documentation allowed these employers to exploit him, frequently not paying him in full.
Carlos told us a relative in Oklahoma has found him a job in trucking, his original profession. “The moment my papers arrive, I’m going to Oklahoma,” he says. “They’re waiting on me.” He was supposed to get his work permit months ago but had to restart the process when his address changed. He was most recently told his papers should arrive in 90 days.
The absurdity is infuriating. Due to decades-old laws, people itching to work linger in shelters against their wishes and at great financial cost, while crucial jobs across the country remain unfilled. The Independent Budget Office estimates the cost of missed work authorizations for asylum seekers at up to $1 billion in 2024 alone.
Even so, with US-born workers rapidly aging, rising immigration has done much to ease post-pandemic labor shortages, helping reduce inflation while maintaining economic growth. And asylum seekers are quietly integrating into the city’s economy. Of the 225,000 migrants who have passed through the shelter system, over 170,000 (77%) have moved out, and the number remaining in city care continues to dwindle.
Many interviewees, having recently gotten their work permits and found jobs after a long ordeal, expressed excitement to begin living independently and working towards the various dreams that kept them going through sweltering jungles and deserts. As asylum seekers increasingly fill the jobs that keep New York’s service-based economy moving, the investments made by both sides finally appear to be paying off. For deportations to derail asylum seekers’ budding lives as New Yorkers would be a human tragedy and an economic catastrophe
Marshall Plane is a Research Assistant at The Immigration Lab.
Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and a Professor at American University.
President Donald Trump aims to upend the immigration system in the United States in his first few days in office. On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signedvarious executive ordersthat temporarily prevent refugees from coming to the U.S. and block immigrants from applying for asylum at a U.S. border, among other measures.
We arescholarsofimmigrationwho closely followpublic discussionsabout immigrationpolicy, trends and terminology. Understanding the many different immigration terms – some technical, some not – can help people better understand immigration news. While not an exhaustive list, here are 10 important terms to know:
1. Migrant
A migrant is a person who moves from their place of birth to another location relatively far away. There are different words used to describe migrants and their particular circumstances. Internally displaced people, for example, means people who are forced to move within their own country because of violence, natural disasters and other reasons.
International migrants move from one country to another, sometimes without the legal authorization to enter or stay in another country. There are also seasonal or circular migrants, who often move back and forth between different places.
Between 30% and 60% of all migrants eventually return to their birth countries.
There is not much difference in why people decide to migrate within their own country or internationally, with or without the legal permission to do so. But it is easier for people from certain countries to move than from others.
2. Immigrants
The terms immigrants and migrants are often used interchangeably. Migration indicates movement in general. Immigration is the word used to describe the process of a non-citizen settling in another country. Immigrants have a wide range of legal statuses.
An immigrant in the U.S. might have a green card or a permanent resident card – a legal authorization that gives the person the legal right to stay and work in the U.S. and to apply for citizenship after a few years.
An immigrant with a T visa is a foreigner who is allowed to stay in the U.S. for up to four years because they are victims of human or sex trafficking. Similarly, an immigrant with a U visa is the victim of serious crimes and can stay in the U.S. for up to four years, and then apply for a Green Card.
Many international students in higher education have an F-1 visa. They must return to their country of birth soon after they graduate, unless they are sponsored by a U.S. employer, enroll in another educational program, or marry a U.S. citizen. The stay can be extended for one or two years, depending on the field of study.
Photo cerdits to Brandon Bell/Getty Images
3. Undocumented Immigrants, Unauthorized Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants
These three charged political terms refer to the same situation: migrants who enter or remain in the country without the proper legal paperwork. People in this category also include those who come to the U.S. with a visa and overstay its permitted duration.
Some of these immigrants work for cash that is not taxed. Most work with fake Social Security numbers, pay taxes and contribute to Social Security funds without receiving money after retirement.
Immigrants without legal authorization to be in the U.S. spent more than US$254 billion in 2022.
4. Asylum Seekers
An asylum seeker is a person who arrives at a U.S. port of entry – via an airport or a border crossing – and asks for protection because they fear returning to their home country. An immigrant living in the U.S. for up to one year can also apply for asylum.
Asylum seekers can legally stay temporarily in the U.S. while they wait to bring their case to an immigration judge. The process typically takes years.
Someone is eligible for asylum if they can show proof of persecution because of their political affiliation, religion, ethnic group, minority status, or belonging to a targeted group. Many others feel they need to leave their countries because of threats of violence or abusive relationships, among other dangerous circumstances.
A judge will eventually decide whether a person’s fear is with merit and can stay in the country.
Photo cerdits to Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
5. Refugees
Refugees are similar to asylum seekers, but they apply to resettle in the U.S. while they remain abroad. Refugees are often escaping conflict.
The Biden administration had a cap of admitting up to 125,000 refugees a year.
Refugees can legally work in the U.S. as soon as they arrive and can apply for a green card one year later. Research shows that refugees become self-sufficient soon after they settle in the country and are net-positive for the country’s economy through the federal taxes they pay.
6. Unaccompanied Children
This is a U.S. government classification for migrant children who enter the U.S. without a parent or guardian, and without proper documentation or the legal status to be in the country. Because they are minors, they are allowed to enter the country and apply for the right to stay. Most often, they have relatives already in the country, who assume the role of financial and legal sponsors.
7. Family Separation
This refers to a government policy of separating detained migrant parents or guardians from the children they are responsible for an traveling with as a family unit. The first Trump administration separated families arriving at the border as part of an attempt to reduce immigration.
Legal migration systems that lack avenues for immigrants who work in manual labor to move with their families, and deportations, both also create family separations.
8. Immigration Detention
Immigration detention refers to the U.S. government apprehending immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization and holding them in centers that are run similar to prisons. Some of these centers are run by the government, and others are outsourced to private companies.
When a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official apprehends an immigrant, they are often first brought to a building where they are placed in what many call a hielera, which means icebox or freezer in Spanish. This refers to cells, cages or rooms where the government keeps immigrants at very low temperatures with foil blankets and without warm clothing.
Immigrants might then be quickly deported or otherwise released in the country while they await a court date for an asylum case. Other immigrants who are awaiting deportation or a court date will be placed in an immigration detention center. Some must post bond to be released while awaiting trial.
9. Coyote
A coyote is the Spanish word for a guide who is paid by migrants and asylum seekers to take them to their destination, undetected by law enforcement. Coyotes used to be trusted by the migrantsthey were helping cross into the country. As the U.S. has tried to make it harder to enter illegally, the business of taking people to and across the U.S.-Mexico border unseen has become more expensive and dangerous.
10. The Alphabet Soup of Government Players
The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is a law enforcement agency created after 9/11. It includes a number of agencies that focus on immigration.
These include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, an agency that is in charge of collecting import duties, passport and document controls at airports, ports, and official points of entry along the border.
The Border Patrol is a federal law enforcing agency under CBP in charge of patrolling and securing U.S. borders and ports.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is a branch of DHS that works within the U.S., within its borders, focusing on detaining and deporting immigrants.
Proyecto 2025 es una agenda de políticas públicas desarrollada por la Heritage Foundation, destinada a ser implementada durante los primeros 180 días del posible segundo mandato presidencial de Donald Trump, en caso de que gane las elecciones del 2024. Este manifiesto tiene 922 páginas y está dividido en cinco secciones, la primera de las cuales se titula “Tomar las riendas del Gobierno.” Si se pone en efecto, este plan tiene el potencial de transformar por completo la estructura del gobierno federal y cambiar el país en su totalidad.
Los Lazos con Trump
El 5 de julio, el expresidente Trump declaró: “No sé nada sobre el Proyecto 2025. No tengo idea de quién está detrás de esto” (Trump). Reiteró este sentimiento durante el debate presidencial del 10 de septiembre, afirmando que él no tiene “nada que ver con el Proyecto 2025” (NBC).
Sin embargo, tras bastidores, la situación parece bastante diferente. En una grabación filtrada por el Center for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, exdirector de la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto durante la administración de Trump, miembro del comité de plataforma del RNC y coautor del Proyecto 2025, reveló que Trump ha “bendecido” a la Heritage Foundation y que “[Trump] apoya mucho lo que hacemos.” Vought también indicó que “no le preocupa” que Trump se distancie públicamente de la iniciativa e indica que esto no debe tomarse en serio.” [Trump] ha estado en nuestra organización. Ha recaudado dinero para nuestra organización.”
Además, varios funcionarios de alto rango de la administración de Trump han sido clave para dar forma al Proyecto 2025. Entre estos contribuyentes se encuentran el ex-asesor de la Casa Blanca Peter Navarro, el ex secretario de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano Ben Carson, el ex jefe de personal de la Oficina de Administración de Personal (OPM por sus siglas en inglés) Paul Dans – ahora director del Proyecto 2025 – y Spencer Chretien, exasistente especial, que actualmente se desempeña como director asociado del Proyecto 2025.
¿Cuáles son sus implicaciones para la política de inmigración de los Estados Unidos?
El Proyecto 2025 tiene importantes implicaciones para la política de inmigración, entre ellas:
Finalización del Muro de Trump
“Asignación obligatoria para la infraestructura del sistema de muro fronterizo. Los fondos asignados se utilizarían para financiar la construcción de sistemas, tecnología y personal adicionales para el muro fronterizo en lugares estratégicos” (página 147).
Lo que dice: Se propone aumentar la financiación para ampliar el muro fronterizo entre los Estados Unidos y México, que aumentaría la vigilancia fronteriza y el contrato de más miembros de la patrulla fronteriza.
Impacto: La finalización del muro fronterizo puede llevar a que los migrantes decididos busquen métodos más peligrosos para cruzar la frontera, lo que resultaría en un aumento de abuso y violencia hacia los inmigrantes. Las expansiones del muro de Trump actualmente tienen 30 pies de altura y ya han resultado en un aumento de muertes y lesiones graves debido a caídas de migrantes (NIH). Solo en El Paso, en los siete meses posteriores al aumento de la altura del muro, la Patrulla Fronteriza y personal de salud han respondido a 229 lesiones por caídas del muro, incluyendo piernas rotas y lesiones cerebrales o de la columna vertebral (NBC).
Con la construcción de segmentos adicionales del muro, los inmigrantes indocumentados decididos a cruzar la frontera se enfrentarán a estos riesgos. Más segmentos del muro podrían empujar a aun más personas al desierto de Sonora, aumentando la mortalidad migrante (UCLA). La expansión del muro de Trump profundiza las tensiones que ya existen entre Los Estados Unidos, México y otros países latinoamericanos, ya que el muro se percibe como un símbolo de división en lugar de cooperación. En lugar de tener fronteras mortales, políticas de inmigración humanas y efectivas podrían proteger mejor los derechos humanos y fomentar relaciones internacionales positivas.
Aumento de la Militarización de la frontera
“Departamento de Defensa: Asistir de manera agresiva en la construcción del sistema de muro fronterizo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos. Además, reconocer explícitamente y ajustar el personal y las prioridades para participar activamente en la defensa de las fronteras de Estados Unidos, incluyendo el uso de personal y equipamiento militar para prevenir cruces ilegales entre los puntos de entrada y canalizar todo el tráfico transfronterizo hacia los puntos de entrada legales” (páginas 166-167).
Lo que dice: ElProyecto 2025 pide un aumento de presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, que probablemente se utilizará para reforzar protocolos de inmigración.
Impacto: Habrá una mayor presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, con más autorizaciones directas al uso de fuerza militar, lo que podría llevar a encuentros más violentos con inmigrantes, independientemente de las circunstancias. Esto pone a los migrantes en un mayor riesgo de encuentros extremos y violentos con la patrulla fronteriza. Además, existe incertidumbre sobre cómo podrían cambiar los centros de detención en respuesta a estas medidas. La militarización de la frontera podría resultar en una mayor militarización de los centros de detención, lo que incrementaría la probabilidad de situaciones hostiles y abusivas para los migrantes en dichos centros.
Deportación Acelerada de Inmigrantes y Deportaciones Masivas
“Para maximizar el uso eficiente de sus recursos, ICE debe hacer pleno uso de las autoridades de Deportación Acelerada (Expedited Removal ER) existentes. La agencia ha limitado el uso de ER a extranjeros elegibles detenidos dentro de las 100 millas de la frontera. Este no es un requisito legal” (página 142).
“ICE debe ser identificadas como responsable de enforzar regulaciones civiles de inmigración, las que incluyen el arresto civil, la detención y la expulsión de infractores en cualquier lugar de los Estados Unidos, sin orden judicial cuando corresponda” (página 142).
Lo que dice: La política actual de ICE sobre la Deportación Acelerada (ER) que aplica en un radio de 100 millas de la frontera se ampliaría bajo el Proyecto 2025 para permitir que ICE detenga a presuntos migrantes indocumentados sin una orden judicial en cualquier parte del país.
Impacto: El proceso de ER ya es controversial, ya que permite a los oficiales de inmigración arrestar y deportar a inmigrantes indocumentados sin una orden o audiencia judicial. Además, “a diferencia de otras órdenes de expulsión, una orden de ER normalmente no puede ser apelada y conlleva una prohibición de cinco años para el reingreso en la mayoría de las circunstancias” (American Immigration Council). El proceso de ER es inconstitucional, ya que viola el derecho al debido proceso (due process) (Houston Law Review). Los oficiales de ICE podrían ser los que deciden el destino de los solicitantes de asilo, u otros inmigrantes con circunstancias especiales en lugar de un juez de inmigración, quien debería estar tomando la decisión. A medida que ICE y el control migratorio se vuelven más poderosos, se aumenta el temor sobre el impacto en las comunidades que ya son marginalizadas, donde una autoridad sin supervisión podría causar más daño y desigualdad.
Restaurar el Título 42
“Crear una autoridad similar a la del Título 42. Autoridad de Salud Pública que se ha utilizado durante la pandemia de COVID-19 para expulsar a extranjeros ilegales a través de la frontera inmediatamente cuando no se cumplen ciertas condiciones sanitarias, como la pérdida del control operativo de la frontera” (página 147).
Lo que dice: El Título 42 fue una política aplicada durante la pandemia de COVID-19 que restringió la inmigración para ayudar a prevenir la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, específicamente COVID-19. El Proyecto 2025 exige que se restaure un proceso como el Título 42, pero no solo para circunstancias excepcionales de emergencias de salud pública. Más bien, se aplicaría a cualquier circunstancia en la que se considere necesaria la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes.
Impacto: Mientras el Título 42 estaba en vigor, el gobierno solicitó la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo que llegaban a la frontera sin una audiencia judicial, lo que violaba el derecho constitucional al debido proceso. La política menciona específicamente su aplicación en casos de “pérdida del control operacional de la frontera”, lo que podría interpretarse de manera amplia y utilizar siempre que las autoridades lo consideren necesario, independientemente de los hechos de cualquier caso individual. La vaguedad en torno a las circunstancias de la aplicación de dicha política podría terminar con la posibilidad de pedir el asilo en la frontera.
Eliminación de “Zonas Sensibles”
“Todos los memorandos de ICE que identifican ‘zonas sensibles’ donde el personal de ICE tiene prohibido operar, deben ser revocados. Confiar con el buen juicio de los oficiales en el campo para evitar situaciones inapropiadas” (página 142).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 establece claramente que quieren deshacerse de las “zonas sensibles” y las zonas libres de ICE.
Impacto: Las áreas protegidas existen para garantizar que miembros de la comunidad tengan acceso libre a servicios esenciales, como (y no limitados a) escuelas, instalaciones médicas, lugares de culto o estudio religiosos (CBP). A ICE no se le permite entrar a estas áreas sin el permiso adecuado, ni llevar a cabo típicas acciones policiales como arrestos, aprehensiones civiles, registros, inspecciones, incautaciones, entrega de documentos de acusación o citaciones, entrevistas y aplicación de control migratorio. La eliminación de las “zonas sensibles” permitirá que las autoridades saqueen estos lugares, que se consideran refugios seguros para los inmigrantes.
Aumento de Espacio en los Centros de Detención
“El Congreso debería ordenar y financiar espacio adicional en camas para los extranjeros detenidos. ICE debería recibir fondos para un aumento significante en los espacios de detención, elevando el número de camas disponibles a diario a 100,000” (página 143).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 tiene como objetivo por lo menos duplicar el número de migrantes posibles retenidos en centros de detención (hasta 100,000). En este momento, la cuota diaria de espacio para inmigrantes en detención enfrentados a la deportación es de 41,500 camas (Congreso).
Impacto: Al aumentar la capacidad de detención, el Proyecto 2025 busca expandir e institucionalizar la detención de inmigrantes indocumentados o solicitantes de asilo. Con una mayor capacidad, se podría decir que proteger la “seguridad nacional” es una justificación para poder perfilar a la gente por motivos raciales y detener a migrantes inocentes para poder llenar los centros de detención. Además, a medida que aumenta el número de migrantes en los centros de detención, también se aumenta el riesgo de sobre populación, servicios de salud inadecuados y acceso limitado a asesores legales. Esto también puede resultar en un proceso de detención más largo, donde las personas son encarceladas en centros por términos indefinidos. Estos centros de detención, muchos de los cuales anteriormente eran prisiones privadas (ACLU), aíslan a los inmigrantes indocumentados y los mantienen en condiciones inhumanas. Esta sección del Proyecto 2025 muestra que se planea un gran aumento en el número de personas detenidas en centros de detención que suelen ser inhumanos y además de posibles deportaciones.
Eliminar las Protecciones para los Menores No Acompañados
“El Congreso debe derogar la Sección 235 de la Ley de Reautorización de Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA), que proporciona numerosos beneficios de inmigración a los niños extranjeros no acompañados y solo ayuda a incentivar más padres a enviar a sus hijos a través de la frontera ilegalmente y sin acompañantes. Con demasiada frecuencia, estos niños se convierten en víctimas de la trata de personas, lo que significa que la TVPRA ha fracasado” (página 148).
Lo que dice: LaSección 235 de la Ley de Reautorización para la Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA)actualmente proporciona protección y asistencia a los menores no acompañados, niños que cruzan la frontera sin un padre o tutor, que corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de la trata de personas y son más vulnerables a la explotación. Su revocación eliminaría estas importantes salvaguardias para los menores no acompañados.
Impacto: Sin estas protecciones, los niños detenidos en la frontera ya no se beneficiarán de una ley de retorno seguro a su país de origen. Además, estos niños y jóvenes perderían el acceso a tener hogares seguros, servicios de atención médica, abogados y defensores legales, ajustes de estatus migratorio, protecciones de asilo y otros tipos de asistencias sociales que los protegen de la explotación, incluida la trata de personas. Además, la eliminación de las protecciones legales para los menores no acompañados dificultaría el proceso de investigación de las autoridades, para poder llevar acción legal contra esquemas de trata de personas. En lugar de quitar ayudas, el gobierno debería centrarse en crear un sistema que procese eficazmente a los niños, proteja derechos humanos y minimice los traumas adicionales para que los niños no acompañados se mantengan alejados de mayores peligros.
Eliminación de Visas para Sobrevivientes de Trata de Personas y Otros Delitos
“Eliminar las visas T y U. La victimización no debe ser una base para un beneficio de inmigración. Si un extranjero que fue víctima de tráfico o delito está cooperando activamente y de manera significante con las autoridades como testigo, la visa S ya está disponible y debe ser utilizada. A la espera de la eliminación de las visas T y U, La Secretaría debería restringir significativamente la elegibilidad para cada visa para poder prevenir el fraude” (página 141).
“También se ha puesto énfasis en la eliminación de las barreras legales a la inmigración, como el uso de beneficios públicos” (página 143).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 propone eliminar las visas actuales otorgadas a las víctimas de la trata de personas (visa T) y otros delitos graves (visa U) que asisten a las fuerzas del orden público a investigar y enjuiciar a quienes cometen tales delitos. Este documento argumenta que la victimización no es una forma legítima de calificarse para beneficios de inmigración, en cambio, se sostiene que este tipo de visas son una ruta fácil hacia el fraude.
Impacto: Las visas T y U existen para que las víctimas indocumentadas de crímenes en los EE. UU. no tengan miedo de denunciar por temor a la persecución y la deportación. La eliminación de estas visas aumentaría la probabilidad de que las personas indocumentadas ya vulnerables caigan victimas al mismo crimen, perpetuando un ciclo de violencia. El Proyecto 2025 propone utilizar la visa S que actualmente ya es disponible en lugar de las visas T y U. La visa S es una visa temporal que permite a los inmigrantes que hayan sido testigos de un delito residir en los EE. UU. mientras ayudan con investigaciones criminales o terroristas. Mientras que la visa S suena similar a las visas T y U, esta visa ignora las circunstancias de la victimización de los migrantes y no reconoce la protección de los derechos humanos. Las visas T y U también tienen como objetivo ayudar a las víctimas de esos delitos a reconstruir sus vidas, proporcionando acceso a atención médica, asistencia legal o cualquier otra atención dada la situación, mientras que la visa S no lo hace. Además, las visas T y U fomentan cooperación y confianza con las autoridades, mientras que las visas S son mucho más restrictivas y pueden aumentan la vulnerabilidad de las víctimas, ya que los perpetradores de los delitos saben que sus víctimas no tienen derecho a utilizar el sistema de justicia de forma “normal” como un ciudadano.
Dar prioridad a los inmigrantes “altamente calificados”
“El programa H-1B, del que se abusa a menudo, debería transformarse en un programa de élite a través del cual los empleadores compiten por traer solo a los mejores trabajadores extranjeros con los salarios más altos para no reducir las oportunidades estadounidenses” (página 145).
“Reforma H-1B. Transformar el programa en un mecanismo de élite exclusivamente para atraer a los ‘mejores y más brillantes’ con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantizar que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en desventaja por el programa” (página 150).
Lo que dice: El gobierno debería utilizar el programa H-1B para priorizar aún más a los inmigrantes altamente calificados. Las personas que ya no tienen méritos y disponibilidad distinguidos deprimen las oportunidades estadounidenses y no se les debe permitir emigrar.
Impacto: El programa H1-B permite que empresas estadounidenses contraten temporalmente a trabajadores de otros países para trabajar en “ocupaciones especializadas.” Para poder satisfacer los criterios de una ocupación especial, uno debe tener conocimiento especializado o experiencia en un campo particular y al menos una licenciatura o un equivalente (Departamento de Trabajo de EE. UU.). El programa H1-B se normalmente se utiliza para contratar profesionales en sectores de ingeniería, matemáticas, tecnología y ciencias médicas (American Immigration Council). El Proyecto 2025 pide que el programa H1-B se transforme en un “mecanismo de élite” que contrate a trabajadores inmigrantes altamente calificados con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantice que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en ninguna desventaja por el programa. Esto hecho puede llegar a ser engañoso, ya que hay estudios que muestran que los trabajadores H1-B no ganan menos que los trabajadores nacidos en los EE. UU. ni tampoco reducen sus salarios (American Immigration Council). Además, hay un límite anual a la cantidad de visas H1-B que se entregan. Con restricciones nuevas a las visas de trabajadores se podría reducir la cantidad y diversidad de talento, limitando las oportunidades para trabajadores calificados con potencial que aún no han demostrado niveles de éxito de élite. Además, una proporción grande de la economía de EE.UU. está compuesta por trabajadores que no se clasificarían como “altamente calificados,” tales como trabajadores agrícolas y en la construcción, pero que, sin embargo, son esenciales para el éxito de estas industrias. Centrarse solo en los inmigrantes “altamente calificados” puede tener consecuencias perjudiciales para las industrias que dependen de una amplia gama de trabajadores: incluidos los puestos de nivel medio y de nivel inicial, y provocar escasez de mano de obra, salarios más altos o precios más altos para los consumidores.
Reducir las Visas de Estudiante
“Priorizar la seguridad nacional en el Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP). ICE debería poner fin a su actual deferencia acogedora hacia las instituciones educativas y eliminar los riesgos de seguridad en el programa. Esto requiere trabajar con el Departamento de Estado para eliminar o reducir significativamente el número de visas emitidas a estudiantes extranjeros de naciones enemigas” (página 141).
Lo que dice: Debería haber restricciones más estrictas en las instituciones educativas que otorgan visados, incluida la disminución del número de visas de estudiante disponibles.
Impacto: El Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP) es un programa administrado por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) que proporciona visas para no inmigrantes para estudiantes y visitantes de intercambio de otros países que buscan una educación en los EE. UU. El Proyecto 2025 implica que el programa SEVP es muy laxo en la admisión de estudiantes extranjeros y que el proceso debe ser más estricto para reducir los riesgos de seguridad. Esta afirmación descarta el hecho de que el DHS utiliza un sistema seguro, llamado Sistema de Información de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVIS), que recopila información sobre estudiantes y visitantes elegibles para el programa SEVP para garantizar que se mantiene seguridad nacional. Además, el Proyecto 2025 propone disminuir significativamente el número de visas otorgadas a “naciones enemigas.” Esto podría alimentar tensiones geopolíticas con otros países y crear divisiones sociales y tensiones en los EE. UU., como el aumento de la xenofobia (aversión o prejuicio contra las personas de otros países), ya que solo los que provengan de países occidentales serían aceptados para estudiar en los EE. UU. Esto también podría crear una barrera innecesaria para la entrada a los EE. UU. de posibles estudiantes altamente calificados que pueden contribuir a la economía de los EE. UU.
Restricciones Estrictas de Asilo y Reducción de Refugiados Aceptados
“El estándar para un temor creíble de persecución debe elevarse y alinearse con el estándar para el asilo. También debe tener en cuenta específicamente las determinaciones de credibilidad que son un elemento clave de la solicitud de asilo” (página 148).
“El Congreso debería eliminar el motivo protegido por grupo social particular por ser vago y demasiado amplio o, en su defecto, proporcionar una definición clara con parámetros que, como mínimo, codifiquen la decisión en materia de A-B de que la violencia de pandillas y la violencia doméstica no son motivos para el asilo” (página 148).
Lo que dice: Estas dos declaraciones del Proyecto 2025 recomiendan restricciones más estrictas sobre quién es elegible para el estatus de asilo, incluido el aumento de los estándares para casos de temor creíble de ser víctimas a la persecución. El Proyecto 2025 agrega que ser parte de un grupo social específico o ser víctima de violencia de bandas o violencia doméstica no debería calificar a alguien para el asilo.
Impacto: Esta recomendación del Proyecto 2025 permitiría al gobierno rechazar y potencialmente poner en peligro la vida de los solicitantes de asilo que no cumplan con los estándares extremadamente altos para demostrar un temor creíble a la persecución (Human Rights First). Las Naciones Unidas publicaron un informe en 2021 en el que expresaban que implementar regulaciones extremas para los solicitantes de asilo es una violación de los derechos humanos (ONU). Los solicitantes de asilo que se enfrentaban a un temor creíble a la persecución bajo a los anteriores requisitos ahora necesitarían evidencia de estándares altos, que puede no estar disponible dependiendo de las circunstancias de la persona. Con restricciones a lo que significa ser un solicitante de asilo, las personas que puedan haber declarado un temor creíble de persecución pueden tener más problemas con las solicitudes de asilo, lo que lleva a largos procesos administrativos y violaciones de los derechos humanos. También dificultaría que una administración pueda otorgar asilo temporal a algunas categorías específicas de migrantes, en respuesta a desastres naturales, desplazamientos forzados y otras amenazas a gran escala para la vida y los medios de subsistencia.
No más Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)
“Actualmente, aproximadamente entre 15 y el 20 por ciento de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB consiste en ayudar a los solicitantes de DACA a obtener y renovar sus beneficios, incluyendo la autorización de trabajo. Esta no es la función del Ombudsman. Además, el gobierno debería ser un árbitro neutral, no un defensor de los extranjeros ilegales” (página 166).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 afirma que la carga de trabajo de la Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB) está abrumada por ayudar a los solicitantes de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) a obtener y renovar beneficios. Además, este documento implica que el gobierno está actuando como defensor de los inmigrantes indocumentados al asistir a los solicitantes de DACA.
Impacto: La Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) permite a las personas que fueron traídas a los EE. UU por sus padres antes de los 16 años, ser elegibles para trabajar, estudiar y servir en el ejército. Los beneficiarios de DACA tienen que renovar sus beneficios cada dos años para mantener la protección temporal contra la deportación. La mayoría de los beneficiarios de DACA han crecido como estadounidenses, han recibido educación estadounidense y son miembros de la comunidad. Muchos de ellos se enteran de que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses una vez que son adultos y atraviesan procesos como solicitudes de empleo y de universidad.
La Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB),sirve como enlace entre el público y los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS), para ayudar a los inmigrantes a abordar problemas e inquietudes con su experiencia con USCIS. CISCOMB es una oficina independiente en el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) separada de USCIS que procesa las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. La afirmación hecha por el Proyecto 2025 con respecto a que CISOMB está agobiada con renovaciones de solicitudes de DACA es engañosa, ya que CISOMB no tiene ninguna autoridad para aprobar o denegar las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. No hay evidencia que informe el porcentaje de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB como se afirma en el Proyecto 2025. Además, esta sección del Proyecto 2025 enfatiza que el gobierno no debería proporcionar ningún servicio a los beneficiarios de DACA, porque promueve empatía hacia los inmigrantes indocumentados. Estos sentimientos dirigidos a ayudar a individuos que se vieron obligados a migrar de niños permiten más flexibilidad para seguir privando a inmigrantes indocumentados inocentes del derecho a la educación.
Restringir los recursos educativos para los estudiantes de DACA
“Departamento de Educación: Negar el acceso a préstamos a aquellos que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses o residentes permanentes legales, y negar el acceso a préstamos a estudiantes en escuelas que dan matrícula estatal a extranjeros ilegales” (página 167).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 pide que el Departamento de Educación niegue préstamos estudiantiles a cualquier persona que no sea ciudadana estadounidense o residente permanente. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impacta a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar al Departamento de Educación que niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes en las escuelas que permiten la matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA.
Impacto: Actualmente, los inmigrantes indocumentados tales como los estudiantes de DACA, no son elegibles para recibir ayuda financiera federal, excepto para los refugiados y algunos titulares de visas (FAFSA). Sin embargo, veinticinco estados de EE.UU. permiten que los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA, paguen matrícula estatal (fuente). Esto permitiría a los beneficiarios de DACA recibir una educación superior más accesible en sus estados de residencia, a pesar de no ser elegibles para préstamos federales. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impactaría a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar que el Departamento de Educación niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes que estudien en universidades que permitan pagar matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA. Esto puede entenderse como un esfuerzo para penalizar a las escuelas que permiten que los estudiantes de DACA paguen la matrícula estatal y, por lo tanto, limitar el acceso de los estudiantes de DACA a una educación universitaria.
Mandato E-Verify
“El Congreso también debería autorizar permanentemente E-Verify y hacerlo obligatorio” (página 149).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 hace un llamado al Congreso para expandir E-Verify, manteniendo una autorización permanente y mandato del sistema.
Impacto: E-Verify es un sistema utilizado voluntariamente por los empleadores, con algunos mandatos estatales y locales, que verifica la elegibilidad de los empleados para trabajar en los EE. UU. (USCIS). Sin embargo, E-Verify no es tan confiable como el Proyecto 2025 sugiere. E-Verify se basa en registros del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) y de la Administración del Seguro Social (SSA), que no siempre están actualizados, lo que resulta en errores o lo que E-Verify llama “discrepancias“. Los errores en el sistema podrían resultar en identificaciones erróneas de personas, incluidos ciudadanos estadounidenses, como incapaces de trabajar en los EE. UU., lo que podría provocar una pérdida del empleo o retrasos en el trabajo hasta que se corrija el error.
Más Transparencia con Respecto a la Información Tributaria de Inmigrantes Indocumentados
“Departamento del Tesoro: Implementar todas las regulaciones necesarias tanto para igualar los impuestos entre los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los titulares de visas de trabajo como para proporcionar al DHS toda la información fiscal de los extranjeros ilegales lo más rápidamente posible” (página 167).
Lo que dice: El Departamento del Tesoro debe hacer que los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los inmigrantes con visas de trabajo paguen la misma cantidad de impuestos. Además, el Departamento del Tesoro debe proporcionar al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional toda la información fiscal de todos los inmigrantes indocumentados lo antes posible.
Impacto: Por lo general, las personas con visas de trabajo pagan la misma cantidad de impuestos sobre la renta que los ciudadanos estadounidenses, con algunas exenciones, como el pago de Seguro Social y Medicare (IRS). Este plan requiere que aquellos con visas de trabajo paguen impuestos por el Seguro Social y Medicare, lo que sería injusto ya que ellos solo viven en los EE. UU. temporalmente y no recibirán dichos beneficios.
Además, el Departamento del Tesoro retiene toda la información fiscal recopilada en los EE. UU., incluida la información fiscal de los inmigrantes indocumentados que pagan impuestos. Si DHS tiene toda la información de identificación, los agentes fronterizos pueden usar esta información confidencial para determinar quién es indocumentado y quién está documentado. Pueden usar esta información para ejecutar planes para llevar a cabo deportaciones masivas de inmigrantes indocumentados, incluso de aquellos que pagan impuestos. Sin embargo, en 2022, los inmigrantes indocumentados pagaron $96.7 mil millones en impuestos federales, estatales y locales (ITEP). Los inmigrantes indocumentados contribuyen significativamente a sus comunidades y al país en general. El presupuesto federal, que durante algún tiempo ha luchado con un déficit creciente (PGPF), no se beneficiaría de deportar a todos los inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan y pagan impuestos en los EE.UU. Incluso amenazar con entregar toda la información fiscal al DHS desalentaría a los inmigrantes indocumentados de pagar impuestos. Esto también afectaría las finanzas del sistema de Seguro Social, que a menudo disfruta de un superávit para los inmigrantes indocumentados que contribuyen con pagos pero no reciben beneficios después de la jubilación.
Falta de Controles y Equilibrios en la Frontera
“El presidente busca una legislación para desmantelar el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS)” (página 133).
“La Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de los Estados Unidos (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) se combinará con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE); Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS); la Oficina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados (ORR) del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS); y la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Inmigración (EOIR) y la Oficina de Litigios de Inmigración (OIL) del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) en una agencia fronteriza y de inmigración independiente a nivel de Gabinete (más de 100,000 empleados, lo que lo convierte en el tercer departamento más grande medido por mano de obra)” (página 133).
Lo que dice: Las agencias de inmigración se consolidarán en una agencia centralizada que controlará toda la implementación y acción de la política de inmigración.
Impacto: El posible desmantelamiento del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) y la consolidación de las preocupaciones relacionadas con la inmigración bajo una sola agencia plantea preocupaciones sobre la disminución de la rendición de cuentas, la transparencia y las protecciones de los derechos civiles de los migrantes. Junto con una mayor militarización del régimen de inmigración de Estados Unidos, podría ser más fácil esconder los abusos de los derechos humanos debajo de la alfombra, lo que llevaría a una mayor represión de los migrantes.
Conclusiones Clave
Contrariamente a la creencia común, la inmigración es esencial para la economía de los Estados Unidos. Los inmigrantes fueron responsables del 50 por ciento del crecimiento del mercado laboral en 2022. Una disminución en la inmigración a los EE. UU. afectará notablemente a industrias importantes donde la mano de obra indocumentada suele ser esencial, como la agricultura, la construcción y el sector de servicios, lo que podría provocar escasez de mano de obra y mayores costos para los consumidores. Las deportaciones masivas de trabajadores esenciales disminuirían la fuerza laboral, lo que podría provocar inflación, escasez de alimentos y otros productos, y precios más altos de las necesidades básicas (Forbes). Si el Proyecto 2025 se ejecutara y aplicara durante un segundo mandato de Trump, las políticas de inmigración más estrictas podrían contribuir a una recesión económica (AULA).
Las recomendaciones de política de inmigración propuestas en el Proyecto 2025 tienen como objetivo crear un cambio significativo en la aplicación de la ley fronteriza que promueva un sistema de aplicación estricta sin ofrecer caminos a la legalización para aquellos que ingresaron al país indocumentados, con el único plan de deportación y detención masivas. Si una segunda administración de Trump adoptara las recomendaciones de política promovidas aquí, aumentaría las vulnerabilidades que enfrentan los inmigrantes, tanto documentados como indocumentados. En lugar de fomentar un sistema de inmigración humano y eficaz, el Proyecto 2025 se inclina hacia medidas punitivas que priorizan la aplicación de la ley sobre la compasión. Para concluir, el Proyecto 2025 transformaría fundamentalmente la estructura del gobierno federal de maneras profundamente perjudiciales para los migrantes de todo tipo, pero también para el florecimiento de la sociedad estadounidense en su conjunto.
Katheryn Olmos es Asistente de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está en el programa de maestría en Sociología, Investigación y Práctica en American University.
Luc Thomas es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está completando su Licenciatura en Ciencias Políticas en American University.
Inés Hidalgo Wieckowicz es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Es estudiante en la Escuela de Servicio Internacional en American University.
Ernesto Castañeda es Director del Laboratorio de Inmigración y del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos en American University.
Robert Albro es Director Asociado de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos.
Editado por Diana Garay, Coordinador del Programa, y Mackenzie Hoekstra, pasante, ambos en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración.
Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseis a government policy agenda developed by the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, intended for implementation within the first 180 days of Donald Trump’s potential second presidential term, should he win the 2024 election. This manifesto is 922 pages long and divided into five sections, the first of which is titled “Taking the Reins of the Government.” If enacted, this plan has the potential to fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government and reshape the country as a whole.
Trump’s Ties
On July 5th, former President Trump stated on his Facebook account, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” (Trump). He reiterated this sentiment during the presidential debate on September 10, asserting that he has “nothing to do with Project 2025” (NBC).
However, behind the scenes, the situation appears quite different. In a leaked recording by the Centre for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s administration, a member of the RNC’s platform committee, and a co-author of Project 2025, revealed that Trump has “blessed” the Heritage Foundation and that “[Trump] is very supportive of what we do.” Vought also indicated that he is “not worried” about Trump publicly distancing himself from the initiative and indicates that this should not be taken seriously. “[Trump’s] been at our organization. He’s raised money for our organization”.
Furthermore, several high-ranking officials from Trump’s administration have been instrumental in shaping Project 2025. Among these contributors are former White House adviser Peter Navarro, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Paul Dans – now the Project 2025 Director – and Spencer Chretien, a former Special Assistant, who currently serves as the Project 2025 Associate Director.
What are its implications for U.S. immigration policy?
Project 2025 has major implications for immigration policy, including:
Completion of Trump’s Wall
“Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure. The monies appropriated would be used to fund the construction of additional border wall systems, technology, and personnel in strategic locations in accordance with the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP).” (Page 147)
What it says: Project 2025 proposes increased funding for expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, increasing border surveillance, and hiring more border patrol.
Impact: The completion of the border wall may only push determined migrants to go after more dangerous border-crossing methods, leading to increased abuse and violence towards immigrants. Trump’s wall expansions currently stand 30 feet tall and have already resulted in a rise in deaths and serious injuries from migrants falling from the wall (NIH). In El Paso alone, within seven months of the increase in the height of the wall, Border Patrol and healthcare workers have responded to 229 injuries from border wall falls, including broken legs and brain or spinal injuries (NBC). With the construction of the additional wall segments, determined undocumented immigrants coming across the border will face these risks. More wall segments could push even more people to the Sonoran Desert, increasing migrant mortality (UCLA). Expanding Trump’s wall deepens tensions between the U.S., Mexico, and other Latin American countries, as the wall is perceived as a symbol of division rather than cooperation. Instead of deadly borders, humane and effective immigration policies could better protect human rights and foster positive international relations.
Increased Militarization of the Border
“Department of Defense: Assist in aggressively building the border wall system on America’s southern border. Additionally, explicitly acknowledge and adjust personnel and priorities to participate actively in the defense of America’s borders, including using military personnel and hardware to prevent illegal crossings between ports of entry and channel all cross-border traffic to legal ports of entry.” (Page 166-167)
What it says: Project 2025 calls for increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border that will likely be used to enforce immigration protocol.
Impact: There will be an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, with more direct authorization for the use of military force, potentially leading to more violent encounters with immigrants regardless of the circumstance. This places migrants at a higher risk for extreme and violent encounters with border patrol. Additionally, there is uncertainty about how detention centers may change in response to these measures. The militarization of the border could result in the further militarization of detention centers, which increases the likelihood of hostile and abusive situations for migrants in detention centers.
Expedited Removal of Immigrants & Mass Deportations
“To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement.” (Page 142)
“ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate.” (Page 142)
What it says: The current ICE policy of Expedited Removal (ER) within 100 miles of the border would be expanded under Project 2025 to allow ICE to apprehend suspected undocumented migrants without a warrant anywhere in the country.
Impact: The ER process is already controversial, as it allows immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a warrant or a hearing. Additionally, “unlike other removal orders, an expedited removal order cannot normally be appealed and carries a five-year bar to reentry in most circumstances” (American Immigration Council). The ER process is unconstitutional since it violates the right to due process (HoustonLawReview). ICE officers would be able to decide the fate of asylum seekers and other immigrants with special circumstances, instead of an immigration judge, who should be making the decision. As ICE and immigration enforcement grow more powerful, there are growing fears about the impact on already marginalized communities, where this unchecked authority could result in widespread harm and inequality.
Bring Back Title 42
“Title 42 authority in Title 8. Create an authority akin to Title 42. Public Health authority that has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel illegal aliens across the border immediately when certain nonhealth conditions are met, such as loss of operational control of the border.” (Page 147)
What it says: Title 42 was a policy enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic that restricted immigration to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases, specifically COVID-19. Project 2025 calls for the same process as Title 42, but not for exceptional circumstances of public health emergencies. Rather it would be applied to any circumstance where immediate removal of immigrants is deemed necessary.
Impact: While Title 42 was in effect, the government called for the immediate removal of immigrants and asylum seekers arriving at the border without a hearing, which violated the constitutional right to due process. The policy specifically mentions its application in cases of “loss of operational control of the border,” which could be interpreted broadly and used whenever authorities feel it is necessary, regardless of facts on the ground. The vagueness around the circumstances of enforcing such a policy could lead to the end of asylum at the border.
Removal of “Sensitive Zones”
“All ICE memoranda identifying “sensitive zones” where ICE personnel are prohibited from operating should be rescinded. Rely on the good judgment of officers in the field to avoidinappropriate situations.” (Page 142)
What it says: Project 2025 clearly states that they want to get rid of “sensitive zones” and ICE-free zones.
Impact: The protected areas exist to ensure access to essential services for community members, such as (but not limited to) schools, medical facilities, places of worship, or religious study (CBP). ICE is not allowed to enter these areas without proper permission, or to carry out typical enforcement actions such as arrests, civil apprehensions, searches, inspections, seizures, service of charging documents or subpoenas, interviews, and immigration enforcement surveillance. The removal of “sensitive zones” will allow raids in such places that immigrants consider safe havens from fear of deportation.
Increased Space in Detention Centers
“Congress should mandate and fund additional bed space for alien detainees. ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000.” (Page 143)
What it says: Project 2025 aims to more than double the number of migrants held in detention centers (up to 100,000). At this time, the daily bed space quota for immigrants in detention who are facing deportation is 41,500 (Congress).
Impact: By increasing detention capacity, Project 2025 seeks to further expand and institutionalize the detention of undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers. With increased capacity, enforcement practices may use “national security” as a justification to increasingly racially profile and detain innocent migrants to fill the detention centers. Furthermore, as the number of migrants in detention centers increases, so does the risk of overcrowding, inadequate health services, and limited access to legal advisors. This can also result in a longer detainment process, where people are incarcerated in these detention centers without any clear end. These detention centers, many of which were previously private prisons (ACLU), isolate undocumented immigrants and hold them in inhumane conditions. This section of policy reflects that Project 2025 plans to oversee a significant increase in the number of people detained in inhumane detention centers and then potentially deported.
Remove Protections for Unaccompanied Minors
“Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed.” (Page 148)
Impact: Without these protections children detained at the border will no longer benefit from a policy of safe return to their home country. Furthermore, these children and youth would lose access to safe housing placements, healthcare services, legal attorneys and advocates, immigration status adjustments, asylum protections, and other types of social assistance that protects them from exploitation, including human trafficking. Furthermore, removing legal protections for unaccompanied minors would make it more difficult for authorities to investigate crimes or prosecute human trafficking schemes. The government should instead focus on creating a system that efficiently processes children, protects human rights, and minimizes further trauma so that unaccompanied children are kept out of further danger.
Removal of Visas for Survivors of Human Trafficking and Other Crimes
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud.” (Page 141)
“Emphasis also has been placed on removing legal barriers to immigration, such as the use of public benefits.” (Page 143)
What it says: Project 2025 proposes to remove current visas given to victims of human trafficking (T visa) and other serious crimes (U visa) who assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting those committing such crimes. This document argues that victimization is not a legitimate way to qualify for immigration benefits, instead maintaining that these types of visas are an easy route to fraud.
Impact: The T and U visas exist so that undocumented victims of crimes in the U.S. will not be afraid to report crimes due to fear of persecution and deportation. Eliminating these visas would increase the likelihood of reprisals against already vulnerable undocumented people, perpetuating a cycle of violence. Project 2025 proposes using the currently available S visa in place of the T and U visas. The S visa is a temporary visa that allows immigrants who have witnessed a crime to reside in the U.S. while assisting in criminal or terrorist investigations. While the S visa sounds similar to the T and U visas, this visa disregards the circumstances of the victimization of migrants and does not acknowledge the protection of human rights. The T and U visas additionally aim to assist victims who have had crimes committed against them in rebuilding their lives by providing access to healthcare, legal aid, or any other care in light of their situation, while the S visa does not. Additionally, T and U visas encourage cooperation and trust with law enforcement, while S visas are much more restrictive and potentially increase the vulnerability of victims since perpetrators of crimes know that their victims cannot prosecute their perpetrators through “normal” legal routes.
Prioritize “High-Skilled” Immigrants
“The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities.” (Page 145)
“H-1B reform. Transform the program into an elite mechanism exclusively to bring in the “best and brightest” at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program.” (Page 150)
What it says: The government should use the H-1B program to further prioritize high-skilled immigrants. People who already don’t have distinguished merit and availability depress American opportunities and should not be allowed to immigrate.
Impact: The H1-B program allows American companies to temporarily hire workers from other countries for “specialty occupations.” In order to meet the criteria for a specialty occupation, one must have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular field and at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (U.S. Department of Labor). The H1-B program is most commonly used for hiring professionals in engineering, mathematics, technology, and medical sciences (American Immigration Council). Project 2025 argues that the H1-B program be transformed into an “elite mechanism” that hires high-skilled immigrant workers at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program. This is misleading, as research shows that H1-B workers do not earn more than U.S.-born workers nor does it lower American wages (American Immigration Council). Additionally, there is an annual cap on how many H1-B visas are granted. Further restrictions on worker visas may actually reduce the overall talent pool and diversity, limiting opportunities for skilled workers who may not yet have demonstrated elite levels of success but possess high potential. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the US economy is powered by workers who might not be categorized as “high skilled,” such as agricultural and construction workers, but who are nevertheless essential to the success of these industries. Focusing on only “high-skilled” immigrants can lead to harmful consequences for industries that rely on a broad range of workers, including mid-skill and entry-level positions, and lead to labor shortages, higher wages, or higher costs for consumers.
Reduce Student Visas
“Prioritize national security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations.” (Page 141)
What it says: There should be tighter restrictions on education institutions for allowing student visas, including decreasing the number of available student visas to protect national security.
What this means: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is a program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that provides temporary visas for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors from other countries seeking an education in the U.S. Project 2025 implies that the SEVP program provides too much leniency in admitting foreign students and that the process should be tightened to reduce security risks. This claim dismisses the fact that the DHS uses a secure system, called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which collects information about students and visitors eligible for the SEVP program to ensure national security. Additionally, Project 2025 proposes to significantly decrease the number of visas given to “enemy nations.” This could fuel geopolitical tensions with other countries, and create social divisions and tensions in the U.S., such as increasing xenophobia (dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries), as only those coming from Western countries would be accepted to study in the U.S. This could also create a needless barrier to the entrance into the U.S. of potential high-skilled students that are in a position to contribute to the U.S. economy.
Strict Asylum Restrictions & Reduction of Accepted Refugees
“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim.” (Page 148)
“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.” (Page 148)
What it says: These two statements from Project 2025 recommend stricter restrictions on who is eligible for asylum status, including raising the standards for cases of credible fear of persecution. Project 2025 adds that being part of a specific social group or a victim of gang violence or domestic violence should not qualify for asylum.
Impact: This recommendation from Project 2025 would allow the government to turn away and potentially endanger the lives of asylum seekers who do not meet the extremely high standards of proving a credible fear of persecution (Human Rights First). The United Nations released a report in 2021 expressing that extreme regulations on asylum seekers are a violation of human rights (UN). Asylum seekers who met a credible fear of persecution under previous qualifications would then require high standards of evidence, which may not be easily available depending on the individual’s circumstances. With the restriction of what it means to be an asylum seeker, people who may have claimed credible fear of persecution may have more trouble with asylum claims leading to long administrative processes and violations of human rights. It would also seem to make it harder for a given administration to grant temporary asylum to specific categories of migrants, in response to natural disasters, forced displacements, and other large-scale threats to life and livelihood.
No More Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
“Currently, approximately 15 percent–20 percent of CISOMB’s workload consists of helping DACA applicants obtain and renew benefits, including work authorization. This is not the role of an ombudsman. In addition, the government should be a neutral adjudicator, not an advocate for illegal aliens.” (Page 166)
What it says: Project 2025 claims that the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) workload is overwhelmed from assisting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applicants obtain and renew benefits. Additionally, this document implies that the government is acting as an advocate for undocumented immigrants by assisting DACA applicants.
Impact:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allows individuals who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before the age of 16, to be eligible to work, study, and serve in the army. DACA recipients must renew their benefits every two years to maintain temporary relief from deportation. The majority of DACA recipients have grown up as Americans, received American education, and are members of the community. Many of them only find out that they are not American citizens once they are adults and go through processes such as employment and university applications.
The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) serves as a liaison between the public and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to help immigrants address issues and concerns with their experience with USCIS. CISCOMB is an independent office in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) separate from USCIS which processes DACA renewal applications. The claim made by Project 2025 regarding CISOMB being overwhelmed by DACA application renewals is misleading, since the CISOMB does not have any authority to approve or deny DACA renewal applications. There is no evidence to inform the percentage of CISOMB’s workload as stated in Project 2025. Furthermore, this section from Project 2025 emphasizes that the government should not be providing any services for DACA recipients because it promotes empathy for undocumented immigrants. These sentiments directed towards helping individuals who were forced to migrate as children allow for more leeway in further depriving innocent undocumented immigrants of the right to education.
Restrict Educational Resources for DACA Students
“Department of Education: Deny loan access to those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.” (Page 167)
What it says: Project 2025 calls for the Department of Education to deny student loans to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students.
Impact: Currently, undocumented immigrants, such as DACA students, are not eligible for federal financial aid, except for refugees and some visa-holders (FAFSA). However, twenty-five U.S. states do allow undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students, to pay in-state tuition (source). This would allow DACA recipients to receive a more accessible higher education in their states of residency, despite not being eligible for federal loans. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students. This can be understood as an effort to penalize schools that allow DACA students to pay in-state tuition and, ultimately, to limit DACA students from accessing a college education.
Mandate E-Verify
“Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory.” (Page 149)
What it says: Project 2025 calls upon Congress to expand E-Verify, by enforcing permanent authorization and mandate of the system.
Impact:E-Verify is a system voluntarily used by employers, with some state and local mandates, that verifies employees’ eligibility to work in the U.S. (USCIS). However, E-Verify is not as reliable as Project 2025 appears to suggest. E-Verify relies on records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), which are not always up to date, resulting in errors, or what E-Verify calls “mismatches.” Mistakes in the system could result in wrongfully identifying people, even American citizens, as unable to work in the U.S., which could lead to job loss or job delays until the error is corrected.
Greater Transparency Regarding Tax Information from Undocumented Immigrants
“Department of the Treasury:Implement all necessary regulations both to equalize taxes between American citizens and working visa holders and to provide DHS with all tax information of illegal aliens as expeditiously as possible.” (Page 167)
What it says: The Department of Treasury must make American citizens and immigrants with work visas pay the same amount of taxes. Additionally, the Department of Treasury must provide the Department of Homeland Security with all tax information of all undocumented immigrants as soon as possible.
Impact: Generally, people with work visas pay the same amount of income taxes as U.S. citizens, with some exemptions, such as paying Social Security and Medicare (IRS). This plan requires those with work visas to pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which is unfair since they are only living in the U.S. temporarily and will not receive such benefits.
Furthermore, the Department of Treasury withholds all tax information collected in the U.S., including tax information from tax-paying undocumented immigrants. If the DHS has all the identifying information, border enforcement agents may use this sensitive information to determine who is undocumented and documented. They may use this information to execute plans to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, even those who pay taxes. Additionally, in 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes (ITEP). Undocumented immigrants significantly contribute to their communities and the country as a whole. The federal budget, which has for some time struggled with a growing deficit (PGPF), would not benefit from deporting all undocumented immigrants who work and pay taxes in the U.S. Even threatening to hand all tax information to the DHS would discourage undocumented immigrants from paying taxes. This would also impact the Social Security system finances, which often enjoys a surplus for undocumented immigrants who contribute with payments but do not receive benefits after retirement.
Lack of Checks and Balances at the Border
“The President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” (page 133).
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) into a standalone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level (more than 100,000 employees, making it the third largest department measured by manpower)” (133)
What it says: Immigration agencies will be consolidated into one centralized agency that will control all immigration policy implementation and action.
Impact: The potential dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security and consolidation of immigration-related concerns under one agency raises concerns about decreases in accountability, transparency, and civil rights protections for migrants. Together with the further militarization of the U.S. immigration regime, it could become easier to sweep human rights abuses under the rug, leading to greater repression of migrants.
Key Takeaways
Contrary to common belief, immigration is essential to the U.S. economy. According to the Washington Post immigrants were responsible for 50% of the labor market’s growth in 2022. A decline in immigration to the U.S. will notably impact important industries where undocumented labor is frequently essential, like agriculture, construction, and the service sector, potentially leading to labor shortages and higher costs for consumers. Mass deportations of essential workers would decrease the labor force, which could lead to inflation, shortages of food and other products, and higher prices for basic necessities (Forbes). If Project 2025 were to be executed and enforced during a second Trump term, stricter immigration policies could contribute to an economic recession (AULA).
The proposed immigration policy recommendations in Project 2025 aim to create a significant shift in border enforcement that promotes a system of strict enforcement without offering paths to legalization for those who entered the country undocumented, with the only plan being mass deportation and detention. Were a second Trump administration to adopt the policy recommendations promoted here, it would heighten the vulnerabilities faced by immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Instead of fostering a humane and effective immigration system, Project 2025 leans toward punitive measures that could jeopardize nationwide benefits. To conclude, Project 2025 would fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government in ways both deeply detrimental to migrants of all sorts but also to the flourishing of U.S. society as a whole.
Katheryn Olmos is a Research Assistant at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. She is in the master’s program in Sociology, Research, and Practice at American University.
Luc Thomas is an intern at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. He is completing his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at American University.
Ernesto Castañeda is Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.
Robert Albro is Associate Director for Research at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.
Edited by Diana Garay, Program Coordinator, and Mackenzie Hoekstra, intern, both at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab.
Starting in 2022, the Immigration Lab at American University began interviewing recent migrant and refugee arrivals to the DMV. So far, we have interviewed 181 from a variety of origins. The interviews aim to understand the experiences of refugees and migrants before, during, and after their entrance into the United States. Interviewers asked participants to reflect on their immigration journey and classify their immigration status. Self-perception, specifically individual understanding of immigration status, varied depending on the respondents’ country of origin, with particular uncertainty for migrants coming from South and Central America. Out of the fifty-nine respondents who were asked to classify their immigration status, eight were uncertain, seven of these were from El Salvador and one from Venezuela.
This broad range of understanding can be partly attributed to the higher clarity in legal definitions for refugee status and recipients of asylum or humanitarian parole versus migrants who have come without papers or who are in the middle of requesting asylum or other humanitarian relief. Refugees and asylum seekers qualify for legal residence based on proving a “well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group” (UNHCR). Refugees are vetted, approved, and brought to the U.S. through international refugee organizations and the U.S. government. They receive specific resettlement services and benefits through sponsoring resettlement agencies in the U.S. under the program known as Reception and Placement. These services are usually limited to the first 90 days after arrival and include necessities such as securing and setting up housing and rent assistance. Other services are provided by case managers, such as cash assistance, cultural orientations, school enrollment, benefit application assistance, employment support, and aid in navigating medical and legal services in their new communities. The goal of these services is for refugees to be economically self-sufficient as soon as possible. The number of refugees allowed in the U.S. is capped each year by the president and Congress. The current admissions cap for FY 2024 is 125,000 and 100,000 were resettled.
Asylum seekers must also prove they meet the conditions set by UNHCR but apply for asylum upon their arrival to the United States. They can apply affirmatively either at the point of entry or within a year of arriving in the U.S., or defensively once they receive notice of removal proceedings. Once granted asylum, they are known as asylees and gain access to government benefits and services similar to refugees like cash assistance and medical assistance, but do not have the same level of support as refugees do through case management. The are no numerical caps on how many asylum seekers can be granted that status but rather are decided on an individual case through immigration courts. This process can be lengthy and has a very significant backlog. According to TRAC, 1,101,819 asylum applicants currently have a pending case with U.S. immigration courts. This number translates into an average wait time of 1,424 days, a wait of almost four years for their case to be heard and decided.
For individuals who do not qualify for legal permanent residency as refugees or asylees, the definitions and processes become more complicated. Unlike for refugees and asylum seekers, there is no legal definition of a ‘migrant.’ A variety of programs/statuses exist for migrants including, but not limited to Humanitarian Parole (HP), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), work permits/visas, student visas, and green card applications, all of which have strict eligibility requirements and timelines.
Social services and benefits available to asylum seekers and migrants are limited. According to the National Immigration Forum, federal benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicare are not available for these immigrants. These benefits are only available to immigrants who have been granted asylum or become lawful permanent residents (LPR) and lived in the U.S. for a minimum of 5 years. Some states offer limited cash, food, and healthcare assistance, however, most of the services available are provided by local nonprofits which face similar barriers to resources and visibility. Accordingly, research shows that immigrants use less government services than the U.S.-born.
In addition to limited social benefits, legal status designations are complex to navigate, often requiring legal guidance and representation to get one’s status adjusted and obtain permanent residency. The interviews conducted by the Immigration Lab highlight this confusion and uncertainty and the need for better and more accessible resources and legal guidance for migrants.
Among respondents who did not classify themselves with a concrete immigration status in the interviews, two main groups emerged, those with some form of legal guidance and those without. Respondents without any form of legal guidance were quick to classify themselves originally as undocumented or express complete uncertainty as to their status. When prompted further during the interviews, many respondents clarified that they were uncertain about their status, not undocumented.
In other cases, individuals thought they may be out of status but in reality, they were pending a decision by migrant courts. In one instance, a respondent from a woman from Colombia stated, “Let’s say right now I don’t have status. I don’t have documentation. I am undocumented.” However, further discussion revealed that she had been processed and released by U.S. immigration and had been allowed to stay in the U.S. on legal grounds, which she did not fully understand. This response highlights how a self-classification as “undocumented” is used as a way to express initial uncertainty. While this response pattern emerged in a few cases, one example of complete uncertainty came from a Honduran male respondent. When we asked about his immigration status, he responded “What can you call it?” The interviewer then went on to explain different avenues of immigration: asylum, visa, and entry without inspection. In response, the man once again affirmed that “I don’t know…” The man explained that he was interested in getting a work permit but had no avenues through whichto obtain one. This shows that they do not know how the U.S. immigration system works, much less how to navigate it.
For those who expressed having legal guidance or representation, a theme of classifying as “in-process” was common. These respondents understood that there was a process that they were going through to get documentation but could not specifically articulate what that process was. For example, when asked to identify her immigration status, one El Salvadorian female explained that she and her family had found a lawyer to represent them. But never articulated what legal avenue was lawyer pursuing. Similarly, an El Salvadorian male expressed confusion over his next court date, not knowing when or what the court appearance was for.
In a working paper written by the American University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies on Newcomer Central American Immigrants’ Access to Legal Services, researchers found that less than half of Central American immigrants have access to legal services because low-income and pro bono services are hard to find. Additionally, this affordable representation often only takes on limited cases, specifically focusing on the cases that are more likely to be won in court. This has resulted in more legal referrals to private firms, and despite these firms providing high-quality services, they are very expensive. Immigrants may be tempted to work with notary generals confusing them with notarios, who in Latin America are highly influential lawyers. This creates a higher degree of fraud risk. Therefore, these Central American immigrants either avoid, don’t have access to, or cannot afford legal services. This means that they must rely on their knowledge or the knowledge of family and friends. In the context of the complex and process-oriented immigration legal system, this information is often not enough and may lead to them losing their immigration case to remain in the U.S.
The analysis of these interviews uncovered the important reality that migrants are often uncertain about their immigration status in the U.S., even when they have access to legal representation or guidance. Volunteers, legal offices that do pro-bono immigration work, and non-profits that have this as their mission are overburdened by caseloads and don’t receive enough funding and donations to expand. People come to the United States for a variety of reasons and often must take timely action to secure their legal statuses. It is crucial that theyhave access to resources that can help guide and support them through the various processes available to them, both legal and non-legal. It is not enough to ensure basic access to these resources; efforts must be made to make information about immigration statuses accessible and understandable for migrants.
Mackenzie Hoekstra is a senior majoring in Sociology at American University and a member of the Immigration Lab.
Edited by Dr. Ernesto Castañeda, CLALS, and Immigration Lab Director.
Republicans in Congress are denying funding to Ukraine and Israel over migration and border security, but the premises and assumptions used to discuss the issue fail to take the following elements into account.
It is hard to determine if numbers are really without precedent. There has been a change in that immigrants come and turn themselves in to try to come in with a legal immigration status, such as through asylum or the regularization programs available to Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and other groups. In previous decades, many low-skilled workers knew there were no avenues to enter legally and would try to pass undetected and live undocumented in the United States. That is less common today for so-called low-skilled, recently arrived immigrants. So, an imaginary example would be to count people who once would mainly drive to New York City for the holidays and then compare them to a time when most people would arrive via plane. It would be easier to count the people arriving on planes, but that would not necessarily mean that there are more people arriving now by plane than the ones who arrived driving in the past.
Historically, numbers are not comparable because, before Title 42, apprehensions were counted versus encounters afterward. Previously, most apprehensions would happen inside the U.S., while today, most people present themselves in groups and in a visible manner at ports of entry, along the physical border, or in front of the border wall. Another important difference is that in the past, undocumented workers relied on established family members and networks to get provisional housing and food and find a job. Many recent arrivals may not have close people in the United States and are actively asking for temporary housing and food from city governments. The U.S. does this for refugees and has done it in the past for Cubans and others escaping repressive regimes. Research and history show that these short-term expenses have been good investments, given that refugees and immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born individuals to work, start businesses, and be innovative leaders. Republicans in Congress have denied requests from the White House to provide funding to cities to cover some of these costs.
Some propose detention as deterrence, but prolonged detention in the United States is very expensive and mainly benefits the companies or workers providing and managing detention centers.
A misconception repeated in the media is that most people are immigrating illegally. That is technically incorrect because people are presenting themselves to immigration authorities. Many migrants are applying to legal programs, asking for asylum, or being placed in deportation proceedings.
The situation that we are seeing at the border and some of the solutions proposed indicate some important points that have been rarely discussed,
1) Border walls do not work. Smugglers can cut them, and people can walk around them or come in front of them on U.S. territory.
2) People are turning themselves in, so contrary to what Trump said recently, authorities know where people are from and where they are going. They have notices to appear in immigration court, and they register an address in order to receive notices and updates if they want to continue with their asylum process and regularize their status. In the past, a great majority of people go to their migration court hearings.
3) CBP One appointments are too cumbersome to make, and there are not enough slots available, so people are showing themselves at ports of entry and between them.
4) The parole program for Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans is working to create a more rational and orderly process. Taking the program away —as Republicans in the Senate want—would make things worse.
5) Putting more pressure on Mexico to deport more people and stop them from getting to the border is unsustainable. Mexico cannot manage the issue by itself unless it gets pressure and funding from the U.S. and international organizations, like Colombia does, to establish immigrant integration programs for immigrants who want to stay in Mexico, and it provides paths to citizenship for them.
Thus, Blinken, Mayorkas, and their companions and team’s visit to Mexico is important. Mexico has been a willing partner, agreeing to take people from third countries under the Remain in Mexico and Title 42 programs, but those programs could only work temporarily. Mexico has also increased the number of deportations. However, deportation only works if people are unwilling to try multiple times. Increasing immigration surveillance, deterrence, and deportation does make arriving in the U.S. harder. It also makes it more expensive and thus attractive for organized crime to get involved in it as a business, thus getting more people to the border once they figure out the business model and logistics even with new policies in place.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has asked for a regularization of U.S. relations with Cuba and Venezuela. There have been positive steps with Venezuela already. This could be a good opportunity to remove Cuba from the list of states sponsoring terrorism, which would reduce some of the emigration pressure in Cuba.
Mexican authorities have disbanded many caravans and slowed the trek of thousands of migrants. Nevertheless, people who are escaping violence and persecution or have sold everything will try to get to the United States.
Long-term ways to address the root causes of migration are to continue providing international aid and supporting democratic institutions. One has to keep in mind human rights. The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has found that profiling people suspected to be migrants in buses to be unconstitutional. To engage the Mexican Army is not the solution either.
The silver lining is that despite the images we see in the news and seasonal peaks, it is not as if all the world is on the way to the U.S.-Mexico border. Most people want to stay home.
Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03) presenting immigration policies the Congress could be working on instead.
In the January 10 hearing towards impeaching DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Republicans repeated many myths, cliches, and anti-immigrant talking points but did not propose any sensible solutions. It was remarkable that Democrats in the committee saw the political nature of the exercise, and many offered actual solutions to improve the situation at the border and inside the United States in a way that makes the immigration and asylum processes more humane and above ground.
Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latino American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab at American University.
Creative Commons license. Free to republish without changing content for news and not-for-profit purposes.
North American leaders, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden, met in Mexico for the 10th North American Leaders’ Summit /Eneas De Troya /Flickr/ Creative Commons License
President Joe Biden conducted his first trip to Mexico in the context of the North American Leaders’ Summit on January 10, 2023. These summits started with George W. Bush in 2005 and did not take place at all while Trump was President. The 2021 and 2023 meetings signal a return to thinking of and valuing the North American region as such. The discussions were best when they decoupled local political considerations, common challenges, and regional opportunities. Three points toward integration are described here.
President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) discussed the advantages of further integrating supply chains within the region. Labor costs in China have gone up, and the pandemic showed that relying on long-distance shipping can delay things during crises, epidemics, and international disputes. There was a push for nearshoring, meaning having an increasing proportion of essential and high-value products manufactured in Canada, Mexico, and Central America rather than Asia. Concrete efforts were mentioned to increase manufacturing in the region within the context of the regional trade agreement USMCA, which includes regulations, respects local preferences, and supports specific sectors and products. Thus, during the summit, Biden and Trudeau were able to look past Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s protection of PEMEX, Mexico’s oil company, and specific controversies about car manufacturing. Furthermore, Biden, Trudeau, and López Obrador discussed the desire for further integration beyond trade. The Mexican President mentioned in his closing speech that Mexico will be represented in planned regional integration meetings by Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard, Finance Minister of Mexico Rogelio Ramírez de la O, Secretary of Economy Raquel Buenrostro Sánchez, and independent businessman who represents the business community, Alfonso Romo Garza. During the meetings, Prime Minister Trudeau was accompanied by his wife, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, Minister of Foreign Affairs Melanie Joly, Minister of International Trade Mary Ng, and the Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino. President Biden was accompanied by the First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Special Presidential Advisor for the Americas Chris Dodd, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Juan Gonzalez. The size and high profile of the entourage show the seriousness of these talks and the intentions to communicate further and coordinate around shared challenges and regional integration.
The three leaders emphasized that migration is a regional process requiring a regional approach. Biden and Trudeau recognized their history and reality as countries of immigration. Canada emphasized its desire to welcome new people to keep growing its population and economy. Biden recognized the history of the United States as a country built largely by immigrants. The Mexican President missed an opportunity to acknowledge that in the last hundred years, a substantial number of people moved to Mexico from places like Spain, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Lebanon, Guatemala, and the United States. There were mentions about the need for Mexico to become the place where some of the people from the hemisphere should receive asylum and be allowed to settle legally long-term. The three heads of government also stressed a safe, humane, and legal entry for migrants through more legal pathways and shared responsibility as advocated for in the Los Angeles Declaration. Additionally, Biden announced the monthly legal entry of 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela with appropriate sponsors, background checks, and airplane flights. Generally, they recognized that the people who emigrate do it as an option of last resort. They expressed the humanitarian need to help create ways to migrate more safely than is currently possible for many.
Prime Minister Trudeau and Presidents López Obrador and Biden committed to collaborating on climate change and promoting racial equity, diversity, and inclusion, including collaborating with marginalized populations to fight violence against Native women and girls and expand the protection of LGBTQI+ people. Regarding climate change, the three nations promised to reduce methane emissions by 15% by the end of 2030, develop a plan to cut food loss and waste in half by 2030, and create trilateral infrastructure for EV chargers. The three leaders also spoke about their support for democratic practice and condemned the events on January 8 in Brazil. Biden and Trudeau spoke about how a feature and strength of their democracies is their diversity. Overall, most of the meetings were about strengthening ties and facing shared challenges pragmatically and collectively. The demeanor was friendly, forward-looking, and about partnership. As Justin Trudeau said, “We are stronger together.”
Where are we two and a half months later, when Biden visited Canada?
Biden spoke about the interconnectedness of the U.S. and Canadian economies, sports leagues, and people. Saying that “the U.S. and Canada share one heart.” Both spoke about green jobs and more regional manufacturing with unionized jobs.
Nevertheless, the attention was focused on asylum seekers. President Biden referred to the Los Angeles Declaration and the importance of helping migrants as a region. Canada announced the orderly welcoming of 15,000 immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. However, the discussion about the official announcement underlines “irregular migration” while mainly talking about people seeking prompt and secure asylum. Cable media commentary often referred to an agreement to address “illegal arrivals” to Canada by people asking for asylum. Nonetheless, asking for asylum is a right that people have under U.S., Canadian, and international law. The issue is that some have arrived away from official ports of entry and then approached authorities to announce themselves and exercise their right to ask for asylum proactively. Under the new agreement, Canada can send migrants back to the United States if they have not applied for asylum in-country first and vice versa. This agreement further weakens the right to asylum in North America and criminalizes those seeking it. The often-mentioned record numbers are probably inaccurate regarding legal and undocumented migrants as a proportion of the population. Still, an increasing number of asylum seekers from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Haiti, Cuba, and the Americas are arriving at land borders. The announcement of this agreement with so much fanfare constitutes a narrowing of asylum avenues and conceding to the Canadian opposition’s framing of immigrants and asylum seekers as “burdens.” It contradicts the speeches of Biden and Trudeau at the North American Leaders Summit in Mexico City on January 10 and Biden’s speech at the Canadian parliament, which recognized the many contributions immigrants make and have made to both countries.
President Biden noted the continued interest of the U.S. and Canada in supporting democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
In the meantime, the Mexican President did not appreciate messages of alarm from the north about the proposed changes to the independent Mexican electoral agency (INE) and other signs of de-democratization. In turn, AMLO spoke about the possible criminal charges against Trump being politically motivated. He also wrongly stated that Mexico is safer than the U.S. after the killing and disappearances of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in Mexico.
Therefore, a few months after the North American Leaders Summit, we see how some leaders are more concerned with national politics, popularity polls, and elections than working with other countries to face common problems. At the same time, working meetings about regional cooperation also serve as a reminder that despite nationalistic and isolationist presidents (like Trump was), civil servants continue working with their counterparts to make sure that regional trade, tourism, migration, consular relations, and educational and cultural exchanges continue.
March 28, 2023
*Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, Immigration Lab, and the MA in Sociology Research & Practice.
Fact-checking and editing by Karen Perez-Torres. Copy-editing by Mackenzie Cox.
CC BY-ND: This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use by news sites.
AULA Blog 