All posts tagged Democratic Governance

What is a migrant? What is ICE? 10 terms to help you understand

By Ernesto Castañeda, Daniel Jenks

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 signed various executive orders that temporarily prevent refugees from coming to the U.S. and block immigrants from applying for asylum at a U.S. border, among other measures.

Another executive order calls on federal agencies to not issue passports, birth certificates or Social Security numbers to babies born in the U.S. to parents not in the country legally, or with temporary permission. Eighteen states sued on Jan. 21 to block this executive order that challenges birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We are scholars of immigration who closely follow public discussions about immigration policy, 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.

An immigrant with a H-1B visa is someone working for a U.S. company within the U.S.

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.

Mexican migrants prepare to turn themselves in to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers after crossing the border into Ruby, Ariz., on Jan. 5, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images — *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.

Ukrainian immigrants attend a job fair in New York City in February 2023. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images — *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.

At least 4,000 children were separated from their parents during the first Trump administration. The Biden administration tried to reunite these families, but as of May 2024, over 1,400 children separated during Trump’s first term still were not reunited with their families.

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 migrants they 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.

The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, takes care of unaccompanied minors after they enter the country.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and Professor at American University.

Daniel Jenks is a Doctoral Student at the University of Pennsylvania,

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

1 Comment

by clalsstaff on January 23, 2025 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged asylum, Civil Society, Democratic Governance, Economy, Immigration, Immigration (U.S.), Migration, news, Politics, refugees, Regional Relations

Posted by clalsstaff on January 23, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/01/23/10immigrationterms/

Bolsonaro’s Long Shadow and Brazil’s Ongoing Democratic Crisis

by Fernando Medici, Mackenzie Presbyterian University

Photo Credit to Amauri Nehn/NurPhoto via AP

Few people outside of Brazil are likely aware that this South American country endured its own version of a Capitol attack. On January 8th, 2023 — two years after the infamous U.S. incident — a mob of supporters of former president Bolsonaro stormed government buildings, including Congress and the Supreme Court. This brazen assault on democratic institutions highlights the dangerous influence of right-wing radicalization and rampant social mediatized fake news, which continue to undermine the nation’s fragile democracy by amplifying a hate campaign against Brazil’s Supreme Court, and pleas for military intervention, while celebrating the insurrection that ended with Bolsonaro’s followers storming the Supreme Court Building.

Like its American counterpart, the unrest was fueled by unsubstantiated claims of election fraud following Bolsonaro’s defeat at the polls. However, what set Brazil’s crisis apart was the additional troubling involvement and support of several high-profile military figures.

Subsequently many of the insurgents were indicted, but until recently little had been done regarding the still unknown leadership of the movement.

That changed this past November as former President Jair Bolsonaro and 36 others were indicted by Brazil’s Federal Police for crimes including an attempted coup d’état, violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, and involvement in an alleged attempt on the lives of President Lula, Vice-President Geraldo Alckmin, and Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

Of course, despite the political weight of these charges, an indictment is not equivalent to a conviction and does not automatically lead to a trial. It only provides evidence for the Prosecutor General’s Office to decide whether to proceed with the case or not. This is not the first time Bolsonaro has been indicted. He was previously implicated in investigations for fraudulent vaccine records and for trying to conceal Saudi Jewelry he was gifted as president, which, according to Brazilian Law, belongs to the government. Both criminal proceedings are currently underway, and Bolsonaro is prohibited from leaving the country.

Regarding the coup d’état-related indictments, after an extensive investigation, the Brazilian Federal Police concluded that the alleged coup attempt was supposed take place in late 2022, after Bolsonaro’s election defeat and led by prominent military figures, including General and formal State-Secretary Mario Fernandes and General Braga Netto, Bolsonaro’s vice president candidate in the most recent election. According to the investigators, Bolsonaro was aware of and supported the coup efforts.

This case underscores the frail state of Brazilian Democracy after years of political radicalization and the unchecked spread of rampant fake news. In large part the proliferation of fake news has been fueled by Bolsonaro’s “Hate Cabinet”, a group led Bolsonaro’s sons Flávio and Eduardo and responsible for managing far-right social networks, the spread of misinformation, and promotion of hate campaigns against Bolsonaro’s political adversaries.

Now, Brazilians await conclusion of the legal process. Expectations are that at the soonest a possible legal action could be filed next year, since the General Prosecutor’s Office will need months to go through the evidence.

Uncertainty surrounding the legal process and the timeline for potential action reflect the broader challenges facing Brazilian institutions and democracy. While the indictments represent a significant step toward accountability, the slow pace of the justice system underscores deeper institutional challenges, exacerbating political polarization and social mistrust. It also feeds narratives of persecution and bias, particularly among Bolsonaro’s far-right supporters, who often portray the judiciary as politically motivated. The credibility of the Brazilian Supreme Court, already eroded by its controversial role in the Lava Jato operation and its perceived partisanship during past political crises, now faces renewed scrutiny. In a country already deeply divided along ideological lines, its lack of perceived impartiality risks intensifying public skepticism, further destabilizing Brazil’s fragile democratic institutions.

It is not a surprise that Bolsonaro supporters have dismissed the allegations against him as political persecution and remain entrenched in their views, further deepening political rifts in Brazilian society. When large segments of the population operate under different understandings of reality, it becomes nearly impossible to foster the trust needed for a healthy democracy.

This scenario places Brazil’s democratic institutions under considerable strain. The 2023 storming of Congress and the Supreme Court demonstrated the vulnerability of these institutions when confronted with coordinated antidemocratic efforts. Now, with claims of military involvement, the alleged coup raises serious questions about how long Brazilian democracy can continue to withstand such blows.

The problem is made worse by Bolsonaro’s hate campaign against the Supreme Court, which has eroded trust in the institution, guaranteeing that any legal decision against him will be seen by a large subset of Brazilians as corrupt and politically motivated.

If Brazilian democracy is to survive, it will require more than just the prosecution of a few individuals, even if they are high-profile. A broader effort to rebuild trust in democratic institutions and to reduce the spread of misinformation will also be necessary. Without addressing the root causes of radicalization and polarization, Brazilian Democracy will continue to be vulnerable, whether to attacks by Bolsonaro’s followers or other political groups.

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on January 22, 2025 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Accountability & Corruption, bolsonaro, Brazil, Civil Society, Democratic Governance, Economy, news, Politics, Regional Relations

Posted by clalsstaff on January 22, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/01/22/bolsonaros-long-shadow-and-brazils-ongoing-democratic-crisis/

Los Inmigrantes Impulsan la Economía de Estados Unidos. Aquí está la prueba.

Por Ernesto Castañeda

November 22, 2024

Donald Trump ha prometido deportar a millones de inmigrantes si es elegido para un segundo mandato, afirmando que, entre otras cosas, los trabajadores nacidos en el extranjero les quitan el trabajo a los locales. Su compañero de fórmula, JD Vance ha hecho eco de esas opiniones antiinmigrantes.

Sin embargo, la mayoría de los expertos coinciden en que las deportaciones masivas dañan la economía de EE.UU. y que incluso pueden provocar una recesión.

Los científicos sociales y los analistas tienden a estar de acuerdo en que la inmigración —tanto de personas documentadas como indocumentadas— estimula el crecimiento económico. Pero es casi imposible calcular directamente cuánto contribuyen los inmigrantes a la economía. Eso se debe a que no conocemos los ingresos de cada trabajador inmigrante en los Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo, tenemos una buena idea de cuánto envían a sus países de origen; más de 81 mil millones de dólares en 2022, según el Banco Mundial. Podemos utilizar esta cifra para calcular indirectamente el valor económico total que genera la mano de obra inmigrante en EE. UU.

Es probable que se subestimen las contribuciones económicas

Llevé a cabo un estudio con investigadores del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y El Laboratorio de Inmigración en la American University para cuantificar cuánto contribuyen los inmigrantes a la economía de los EE. UU. en función de sus remesas o dinero enviado a casa.

Varios estudios indican que las remesas constituyen el 17,5% de los ingresos de los inmigrantes.

Teniendo en cuenta eso, estimamos que los inmigrantes que enviaron remesas en 2022 tuvieron salarios netos de más de $466 mil millones. Luego, suponiendo que sus salarios netos representan alrededor del 21% del valor económico de lo que producen para las empresas donde trabajan, por ejemplo, en restaurantes y construcción, los inmigrantes agregaron un total de $2,2 billones a la economía estadounidense sólo en 2022.

Esto es aproximadamente el 8% del producto interno bruto de los Estados Unidos y cerca de todo el PIB de Canadá para 2022,la novena economía más grande del mundo.

Los Inmigrantes en Estados Unidos que mandan dinero al extranjero crean al menos $2 billones en actividad económica

Basado en cuanto dinero los inmigrantes en Estados Unidos envían al exterior en 2022, los académicos estimaron los ingresos y de allí, cuanta productividad generaron en la economía estadunidense. El estudio estimó que las contribuciones totales de los migrantes a la economía estadunidense exceden $2 billones (trillones en inglés) en 2022.

La inmigración fortalece a Estados Unidos

Más allá de su gran valor, esta cifra nos dice algo importante: los principales beneficiarios de la mano de obra inmigrante son la economía y la sociedad de Estados Unidos.

Los 81 mil millones de dólares que los inmigrantes enviaron a casa en 2022 son una pequeña fracción del valor total con el que contribuyen a la economía: 2.2 billones de dólares. La gran mayoría de los salarios y la productividad de los inmigrantes (el 96 %) se queda en Estados Unidos.

Las remesas desde los EE. UU. representan una fuente sustancial de ingresos para las personas que las reciben. Pero no representan un drenaje de dólares estadounidenses, como ha insinuado Trump cuando llamó a las remesas “asistencia social” para personas de otros países y sugirió imponerles impuestos para pagar la construcción de un muro fronterizo.

Es probable que las contribuciones económicas de los inmigrantes estadounidenses sean incluso más sustanciales de lo que calculamos.

Por un lado, la estimación del Banco Mundial sobre las remesas de inmigrantes es probablemente un recuento insuficiente, ya que muchos inmigrantes envían dinero al exterior con personas que viajan a sus países de origen.

En investigaciones previas, mis colegas y yo también hemos descubierto que algunos grupos de inmigrantes tienen menos probabilidades de enviar remesas que otros.

Uno de ellos son los profesionales de cuello blanco: inmigrantes con carreras en la banca, ciencia, tecnología y educación, por ejemplo. A diferencia de muchos inmigrantes indocumentados, los profesionales de cuello blanco generalmente tienen visas que les permiten traer a sus familias con ellos, por lo que no necesitan enviar dinero al extranjero para cubrir sus gastos domésticos. De igual forma, los inmigrantes que han estado trabajando en el país durante décadas y tienen más familiares en el país también tienden a enviar remesas con menos frecuencia. Ambos grupos tienen mayores ingresos y sus contribuciones no están incluidas en nuestra estimación de 2,2 billones de dólares.

Además, nuestras estimaciones no tienen en cuenta el crecimiento económico estimulado por los inmigrantes cuando gastan dinero en los EE. UU., creando demanda, generando empleos y empezando negocios que contratan inmigrantes y locales.

Por ejemplo, calculamos los aportes de los inmigrantes salvadoreños y solo sus hijos agregaron aproximadamente 223 mil millones de dólares a la economía de Estados Unidos en 2023. Eso es aproximadamente el 1% del PIB total del país.

Teniendo en cuenta que la economía de Estados Unidos creció alrededor de un 2% en 2022 y 2023, esa es una suma sustancial.

Las cifras qué presentamos son un recordatorio de que parte del éxito financiero de Estados Unidos depende de los inmigrantes y su trabajo.

Ernesto Castañeda es director del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y del Laboratorio sobre la Inmigración de American University.

Edgar Aguilar ayudo con la preparación, análisis y traducción.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on November 22, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Democratic Governance, Elections, espanol, featured, Immigration (U.S.), news, politica, Politics

Posted by clalsstaff on November 22, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/22/los-inmigrantes-impulsan-la-economia-de-estados-unidos-aqui-esta-la-prueba/

Dual Perspective on Food Program Administration

By Lia Sullivan

November 21, 2024

A table full of vegetables including celery and carrots.

Addressing and combatting food insecurity requires a coordinated approach across all sectors, including nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and private corporations. Although these varying groups may approach the cause differently, there is a shared goal of increasing food security. This analysis was influenced by my experience working in a nonprofit addressing food insecurity as well as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Food and Nutrition Service. My experiences gave me valuable insights into the stark differences between government and nonprofit organizations. in understanding, approaching, and solving food insecurity between government and nonprofit organizations.

The mission of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service is stated as, “To increase food security and reduce hunger in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthy diet and nutrition education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.” They administer 15 federal assistance programs including SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), school meals, CACFP (Child and Adult Food Care Program), WIC (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). My responsibilities included reviewing and editing resources that program administrators used to properly procure and serve food that aligns with the nutritional standards set by the agency. This opportunity allowed me to gain experience in the federal processes that go into the nutrition programs that serve and assist millions of Americans.

The nonprofit organization I worked with aimed their mission as, “Striving to eliminate hunger in the nation’s capital while enhancing the nutrition, health, financial stability, and overall well-being of low-income residents in the District.” Their main focuses are on D.C. resident participation in federal nutrition programs, improving public policies, and educating the public on the reality of hunger’s existence within the District. My responsibilities were increasing SNAP and WIC participation by creating relationships with residents and producing educational content. This role gave me first-hand experience with the communities directly affected by food insecurity and allowed me to see how the policy created by our government affects Americans every day.

The differences I noted between the two experiences varied, from how the meetings were conducted to how they defined activism. Within the USDA, meetings were highly structured, with a specific focus on compliance with federal regulations and guidelines. I found the weekly staff meetings to be lively, with a lot of small talk and team activities. On the contrary, the nonprofit team meetings were centered around community intervention with little to no small talk and few team connection activities. These differences were notable for me, as they showed the discrepant level of urgency in the line of work between the two sectors. This could be attributed to numerous factors, including different standards and regulations each organization is held to. Nevertheless, it shined light on the importance of nonprofit organizations supporting USDA policy.

Additionally, the difference in staffing retention and burnout between the two organizations was striking. Throughout my year at the nonprofit, I saw many team members resign from positions due to the stress and emotional toll that comes with aiding underserved communities. Furthermore, there were few to no employees who had been with the organization for over four years. In my year with the organization, I witnessed the reinstating of three different presidents and the resignation of two. Whereas in the USDA, most employees had high tenure, with some even reaching 20-25 years in the agency. This difference in retention is a common problem, in the nonprofit sector. With limited funding and resources, staff often are forced to take on responsibilities beyond their original job description, working long hours to meet deadlines, and to keep up with the needs of District residents. In the government, however, there are strict guidelines in place limiting hours worked by each employee and the duties they are permitted to perform, helping keep their retention rate high.

Beyond job loss from burnout, I also witnessed the nonprofit organization’s largest layoff period in its history. Essential positions such as communications and public relations coordinators, government affairs specialists, and others were released from the organization due to large budget cuts. Additionally, other employees were forced to take furlough days to keep their jobs afloat. In contrast, job stability within the government sector was a promising factor for prospective employees. The federal government, the largest employer in the United States, provides comprehensive benefits and job security.

Overall, both organizations play vital roles in supporting and combatting food insecurity nationwide. The government creates vital policies and budgets to support the “boots on the ground” and educational information that nonprofit organizations work tirelessly to implement. Through these experiences, I was able to see the varying factors that go into supporting our neighbors who experience food insecurity every day. Having worked at a nonprofit before the USDA allowed my work through the government to remain grounded in the experiences of those we are seeking to help. Therefore, policymakers and direct service providers should better collaborate in hopes of making these efforts more effective.

Lia Sullivan is an MA student in the Sociology and Research Program at American University.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on November 21, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged agriculture, Democratic Governance, diet, Elections, featured, food, food-insecurity, health, Immigration (U.S.), news, Politics

Posted by clalsstaff on November 21, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/21/dual-perspective-on-food-program-administration/

The Taxing Debate

The Taxing Debate on Migration in the U.S.

By Mary Capone

November 19, 2024

Nearly half of American adults feel that immigration threatens national identity. This proportion has increased in recent years as anti-immigration sentiments have surged in politics and partisan divergence has deepened in rhetoric. The former Trump administration was highly influential in the anti-immigration movement, with much of Trump’s campaigns hinging on xenophobic policies like building a wall on the southern border and ending DACA. Such policies jeopardize the human rights of immigrants in the United States, who make up nearly 14% of the U.S. population. The Biden administration’s handling of immigration has also been criticized by 60% of Americans, indicating that the ongoing conflict over immigration is worsening.

Polls from PBS NewsHour, 2024.

Why is migration so controversial? Shouldn’t people be allowed to migrate safely?

The answer lies in white supremacy and ‘tax dollars.’

At a 1983 Conservative Party conference, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said, “If the State wishes to spend more, it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Like many politicians, Thatcher propagated the notion that government spending relies on taxpayers’ money, placing the burden of spending on individuals.

Similar sentiments are not uncommon in the United States. Former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, featured this tagline in his 2018 campaign targeting his opponent: “Tony Evers: Special treatment for illegals, higher taxes for you.” Donald Trump continues to campaign on anti-immigration policies to appeal to Americans who feel skeptical about their tax dollars going to immigrant welcoming programs. Trump’s campaign website highlights “20 Core Campaign Promises to Make America Great Again,” two of which focus on blocking immigration, including the first promise: “Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion.” These arguments are used to justify relatively small government investment in important services that benefit communities of color and immigrants by suggesting they would be an imposition on the ‘taxpayer.’

To understand the historical use of the term ‘tax dollars,’ Camille Walsh analyzed hundreds of letters defending racial segregation addressed to the Supreme Court in the years following the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). One-third of the letters consisted of some language about taxes, taxpayers, or having “paid” for public schools, implying the right to decide whether to keep them segregated. The American ‘taxpayer’ historically represents white individuals, and such language “obscured class divisions among whites and elevated those racialized groups presumed to have higher taxable income to a higher position in claiming citizenship rights.” White individuals like Aura Lee (1956), argued that “poor white taxpayers are entitled to enjoy some all-white places, if they so desire.”

As the term ‘taxpayer’ is historically associated with whiteness, it is used to justify the entitlement of resources concentrated in white communities. Meanwhile, the ‘nontaxpayer’ is meant to symbolize Black and Brown individuals who are perceived not to have “earned” their rights. While this argument is used to exclude people of color from resources, historian James Anderson finds that taxes from predominantly Black communities were at least as much during the time of the Brown ruling, and often higher than those of white neighborhoods. These taxes were often distributed by white school boards into all-white schools prior to Brown. This does not account for today’s common tax evasion of the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations. The Treasury Department estimates that there is a $160 billion gap between what the wealthiest 1% of the population should pay and what they actually pay.

Seventy years after the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, politicians, citizens, and the media hold ‘taxpayer dollars’ to be sacred. Similar to the discussions surrounding racial integration in the mid-20th century, immigration represents a battle between the ‘taxpayer,’ or white American, and the ‘nontaxpayer,’ or immigrant. Just as white parents feared sending their children to integrated schools with “much lower standards and run-down facilities than the ones that [they] helped pay for,” many white Americans do not want immigrants to have access to vital resources and fear the use of their dollars on government spending.

Nevertheless, between sales taxes and property taxes, undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes each year. Not only are immigrants taxpayers, but they pay taxes at higher rates than the richest Americans and get less in return. Taxpayer rhetoric is another weapon of othering by separating white U.S.-born individuals from Black and Brown immigrants, regardless of who pays their taxes.

Graph from the American Immigration Council (2016).

A quote from former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan counters concerns about government spending causing a deficit, stating: “There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants.” Similar to banks not lending out depositors’ money, government spending does not use tax dollars for spending. To illustrate this, the U.S. government spent trillions on wars post-9/11 and hundreds of billions to bail out banks in 2008, neither of which were framed as a tax dollar problem. Despite the framing of funding essential services as an attack on individual taxpayers, in reality, it falls within the bounds of federal government spending.

International law considers migration to be a universal right. Immigration control “is a relatively recent invention of states,” according to Vincent Chetail, a professor of international law. The U.S. has a duty to protect the rights of all people and not discriminate based on race, national origin, religion, or any other group category according to the 14^th Amendment, and many international treaties it is a party to.

Research indicates that government investments in immigrants have a higher return over time. For example, more educated immigrants earn more and, therefore, pay more in taxes. Fiscal concerns are not based on reality, as immigrants are net contributors to the federal budget. ‘Tax dollars’ are simply a code for white dollars to instill fear and discrimination against vulnerable populations, despite taxation realities.

Mary Capone is a researcher at the Immigration Lab at American University.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Immigration

Tagged Civil Society, Democratic Governance, donald-trump, Economy, Elections, Immigration, Immigration (U.S.), kamala-harris, news, Politics, trump

Posted by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/19/the-taxing-debate/

Kamala Will Win

This Is Why Kamala Harris Will Win

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 5, 2024

Harris at the packed DC rally in the Ellipse on October 29.

My assessment is that Kamala Harris will win the election. It is not based on the polls or the betting markers, which are not helpful given their very tight margins. Instead, Harris’ big tent, misrepresentation of the primacy of the economy and immigration in surveys, and social trends lead me to believe that Harris will win.

First of all, following the voting trends from the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Trump will not win the popular vote. This matters, as it determines popularity and broad appeal nationwide. Trump has never been appealing to over half of the population as a politician. While Trump was a fresh figure in politics in 2016, and there were some shy voters (given his novel strident and racist anti-immigrant comments), in 2024, he is a well-known entity, and most of his ardent followers are loud about their support, and not shy to say so to pollsters, door knockers, or people calling to get out the vote. Even so, attendance at his rallies and Trump flags outside of houses have decreased from previous cycles. Trump obsesses over crowd sizes, which was one of the indicators of his appeal in 2016. However, the infamous Madison Square Garden Trump rally on October 27 had around 19,500 people in attendance compared to around 30,000 people for Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas, on October 25, and over 75,000 at her rally in Washington, DC, on October 29.

Trump counts on a core base of around 33% of the electorate that holds strong views against immigration, complains about the economy, and will support Trump no matter what. Some more traditional Republicans will also vote for him. Nonetheless, his main campaign strategic imperative was to appeal to moderates, independents, and White suburban women to expand his margin over 50%. His 2024 campaign has not done so; he has focused on animating and mobilizing his core base. Many of his comments and those of his surrogates and supporters have alienated moderates as well as some registered Republicans. He has been more focused on discrediting the electoral process, the media, and his opponents and critics than on appealing to all voters.

In contrast, Kamala Harris has been explicitly open to conservative-leaning independents and even former Republican officeholders, including, but not limited to, Liz Cheney. Many registered Republicans, college-educated men, and many women will vote for her. That should be enough to guarantee her victory. She has done so not by compromising her beliefs and Democratic priorities but by promising to uphold the Constitution and protect democracy.

It is true that an unintended effect of Trump’s hate speech has created a certain increase in support among some Black, Latino, and Asian voters, but that will not be enough to counter the fact that a majority of women across racial and ethnic groups will vote for Kamala Harris as will many men and registered Republicans and independents.

A weakness for Harris lies in the uncommitted voters because of the situation in the Middle East who may vote for Jil Stein or abstain in places like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit, Dearborn, and college campuses. Trump’s election would make things worse in the Middle East, so some will reluctantly vote for Harris and then get ready to continue with their protests and demands for a ceasefire.

The media across the board has obsessed with “immigration” and “the economy” being the main concerns of the electorate and that public opinion favors Trump to handle them. But first of all, objectively, the economy is strong, and asylum-seeking at the border today is at very low levels. Second, and most importantly for elections, when one looks at the polls that are used to make these claims, these are the main issues for less than half of the electorate, and they are the main issues for Republican respondents, who naturally favor Trump’s solutions on these areas. In other words, putting the bulk of the Republican agenda around closing the border is not enough to gain a majority of voters nationwide or even in most swing states. The urban legend about immigrants eating cats shows voters how exaggerated these warnings are. The common claims against immigrants are false, as my book —coming out today— Immigration Realities documents.

Many pundits, consultants, and advisors have been saying that “Harris is weak on the border.” Not only is that false, but my response has been that the immigration obsession will cost Trump the election. Mass deportations are not popular outside of MAGA circles, while a path to citizenship has large levels of support. The Madison Square Garden rally made it clear to many voters and agnostic observers that this was not about undocumented immigration but about creating a White Christian Ethnostate.

There are even some indications (like the exit polls in the Republican primaries in Ohio) that some Evangelicals and religious voters are tired of Trump supposedly representing their views and values. The majority will still vote for him, but less than in previous elections when he has been on the ballot. The same is true for rural and union members. Biden has been a strong pro-labor president. Tim Walz is more familiar with rural White voters than Vance is these days. The majority will vote Republican, but many will vote Democrat. Harris is endorsed by both Liz Cheney and Bernie Sanders. Her appeal and favorability are wide, and she could create an even wider base of support than Obama.

Democratic institutions, freedom of the press, and many other values and institutions are on the line. This is the first election where Trump is on the ballot after January 6, 2021, and the many trials against him. He will not lose all his supporters, but he will lose some.

Recent local and midterm elections have shown that the across-the-board restrictions on abortion and emergency care while pregnant are large motivators to drive women and men to the polls to repeal these propositions and to vote for Democrats. In 2016, most White women supported Trump and not Hilary Clinton. This may be different this time because of the end of Roe vs. Wade. This would be crucial because women are the majority of likely voters, and they were more active in early voting.

Established Latinos of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and South American origin in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New York will make important contributions to the Democratic vote. I predict that many women and new citizens of immigrant origin and some who did not vote in previous elections because of age or lack of interest (thus often not in pollster models of likely voters) will turn out to vote for Harris.

All along, the expectations have been set very highly for Harris, and she has excelled at each challenge, including securing the nomination uncontested, choosing a strong VP candidate, leading the RNC, speaking at rallies, showing she can be Commander in Chief, bettering Trump at their debate, engaging with the media effectively, she can take questions from the media and answer them thoughtfully, to round it all out she can engage in retail politics with much enthusiasm and empathy.

Trump carries all the media attention and campaign resources from the RNC, and most Republicans down the ballot depend, to a large degree, on his appeal. This does not bode well for them. Furthermore, the Republican-led Congress has been one of the most ineffective in recent memory. Government shutdowns have been adverted, and there have been impactful and popular bipartisan accomplishments such as the Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, and support for Ukraine, but many Republican Congresspeople have voted against these achievements.

All these factors combined seem to indicate that Trump supporters will have a weaker showing than when he lost in 2020, even if we are not in the middle of a pandemic. Kamala Harris has benefited from a fresh, exciting, flawless campaign, drawing all the enthusiasm that had been lacking since Obama’s first presidential campaign.

To recap, the biggest errors in the 2024 election coverage have been the out-of-proportion focus on the economy and immigration as the biggest concerns of all voters when, indeed, these complaints are not fully based on reality and are mainly coming from Republican-leaning voters. Nobody likes inflation, but unemployment is low, and wage and economic growth rates are positive and steady, with a big improvement from 2020. Reproductive health and women’s rights will be more important in motivating people across party affiliations to vote for Harris and Democrats. While the polls are currently very tight, and there is noise that favors Trump (allowing him to repeat the big lie), ultimately, cold analyses of the electorate’s behavior and preferences tell us that Harris is on track to win the electoral college and with wider margins than the polls show.

Ernesto Castañeda, PhD is Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab and Professor at American University.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Civil Society, Democratic Governance, donald-trump, Elections, featured, Immigration, Immigration (U.S.), kamala-harris, legislation, news, policy, politica, Politics, trump

Posted by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/05/kamala-will-win/

Political Piñatas

Political Piñatas: How Conservatives Use Latinos to Polarize U.S. Society

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 5, 2024

Many are surprised to learn that some Latinos vote Republican. A larger percentage of Latinos voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. A similar percentage or even more may vote for Trump in 2024. There are many reasons for this, which are often misunderstood by the wider public. I discuss some of them here.

Latinos represent the largest minority in the U.S. at over 65 million and have gained attention as political parties vie for the so-called “Latino vote” as elections are won by tighter margins. This is particularly the case in swing states with large Latino populations. How best to describe the landscape of Latino voters’ preferences remains a question of regular debate. On the one hand, Latinos are still frequently superficially treated as a relatively uniform voting bloc —even if more “up for grabs” today with polling data suggesting gradual shifts in party affiliation. As such, Latinos are often treated as a demographic that can tip the balance in favor of a party. Nonetheless, polls and pundits necessarily flatten the real views of Latinos. This has always been a diverse group. The birth of the term Hispanic aimed to bring together Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans around common causes. Regional differences are key; for example, in the D.C.-metro region, Latinos are diverse and majority Salvadoran; in California and Texas, they are mainly of Mexican and Central American descent; in South Florida, they are a mixture of Cuban, Venezuelan, Colombian, Nicaraguan, among others.

Many recent immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean come escaping failed states and so-called leftist regimes. Many migrants have been directly affected by inequality in their countries of origin. Democratic erosion throughout Latin America and the Caribbean makes it hard for opposition activists and critics of these regimes. Like Eastern Europeans behind the Iron Curtain and Cubans after Castro’s takeover, many recent immigrants see themselves as forced political exiles escaping from authoritarian states that robbed them of their wealth and freedoms. Therefore, in the U.S. they are more likely to identify with ideals of individual freedom and free enterprise.

Trump has also had a polarizing effect on Latinos. Republicans have sought to exploit a process well-documented by scholars: the creation of social boundaries. Trump’s discourse encourages distinctions between “good immigrants” and “good Latinos” in contrast to undocumented “criminals.” Those immigrants with visas and legal permits, higher education levels and family incomes, lighter skin, or who align better with the U.S. geopolitical preferences tend to be more successful than those who do not have immigration papers. This creates hierarchical differences within Latinos. Many U.S.-born and legal Latino immigrants try hard to distinguish themselves from individuals and groups framed as “illegal” and “criminal” to avoid the stigma assigned to those groups.

These social processes create durable inequalities not only between Latinos and non-Latinos but also among Latinos. In public discourse, Latinos are used as proxies and piñatas to polarize Americans further. In turn, some Latinos internalize feelings of inferiority or superiority and may loudly act upon them, adding to the process of polarization. Some Latinos organize against dehumanizing language and build networks of solidarity among Latinos and with other groups. However, a numerical minority such as the White Nationalists and antisemites Nick Fuentes or Enrique Tario, leader of the Proud Boys, are not passive receivers of stigmatizing attacks but become amplifiers of hate speech in exchange for group membership as part of a sometimes-xenophobic White majority. Some who have seen fellow Latinos excluded, targeted, and stigmatized may try to pass as White by attacking other Latinos, further polarizing the country in the process and weakening democratic institutions and minority rights. For these reasons, studying the effects of polarization on Latinos and the role that Latinos have in social polarization is of national importance.

Latinos can hardly be said to form a cohesive or predictable voting bloc. Latinos do not fit neatly into the racial categories that often orient public political debate, which can lead to simplifications of Latinos’ views. Latinos are relatively less partisan as a group. A Pew Research Center report indicates that less than half of Latinos acknowledge significant differences between political parties, with a large share agreeing that neither party effectively represents their interests. Immigration is motivated by economic success, so access to jobs and better pay are their priority. Most Latinos have papers, so immigration is not an immediate concern for most Latino individuals, but it is a theme full of an emotional load; the immigration struggles of family members are close to their hearts.

An influential narrative regarding political polarization is that the electorate has become increasingly stoked by racial tensions and grievances. In this account, race is an important source of polarization. Latinos’ views are diverse and sometimes distinct from those of other Americans and more often map with those of similar occupations and socio-economic status. The diversity within Latino communities impacts the overall political polarization dynamics in the U.S. Typical analyses of race/ethnicity as a variable in culture war-type political contests do not adequately account for the heterogeneity of Latinos as a group and for the range of variation of their political commitments. National origin, gender, religious affiliation, geographic location, educational attainment, class, media consumption, and generational experience, among others, are impactful factors in identity formation.

Latinos display greater cultural unity than political unity. Latinos are part of their local and larger national political ecosystems. Latinos, despite immigration status, have demonstrated notable unity mobilizing in response to racist anti-immigrant rhetoric from local, state, or national politicians. Research also shows that over time, anti-immigrant policies can contribute to the withdrawal of Latinos from the public sphere. But sometimes there is increased group cohesion among Latinos as a reaction to external group threats such as public hostility toward immigrants and the portrayal in the media of Latinos as likely to be Mexican, undocumented, and lesser than. A stronger identification as Latino resulting from previous political organizing does lead to higher levels of political participation. In other cases, as Latinos become business owners, upper middle class, and part of mainstream U.S. society, they may become more politically conservative and may try to distinguish themselves from newcomers. Other successful Latinos, who are less insecure about their status, mentor and open doors for others, volunteer, and become philanthropists.

Furthermore, some Latino subgroups are more susceptible to misinformation. The choice of media varies by immigration status and age. Older first-generation Latinos often opt for more traditional media sources such as radio and T.V., and more often in Spanish. Younger Latinos, often second- or third-generation, exhibit a wider range of media consumption, mainly in English and social media. These choices create different media echo chambers, differing attitudes about the meaning of “Latino,” and varying political values even within the same family.

Ernesto Castañeda, PhD is Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab and Professor at American University.

This piece is a revised and shortened version of an unfunded research proposal written for the Carnegie Fellows Program on Polarization in November of 2023.

You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Civil Society, Democratic Governance, donald-trump, Elections, featured, Immigration, Immigration (U.S.), legislation, news, policy, politica, Politics, trump

Posted by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/05/political-pinatas/

Anti-Immigration Rhetoric is an Electoral Vulnerability: Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections

By Ernesto Castañeda, Joseph Fournier, and Mary Capone

October 1, 2024

Graph elaborated by the authors with data collected from CNN Politics’ Midterm Election Results.

The above graph represents the proportional success of candidates who used anti-immigration sentiment in their campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections. Results data was taken from CNN Politics. Anti-immigration rhetoric was found in campaign material through Meta Ad Library, X (formerly Twitter), debate responses, campaign website archives, YouTube ad searches, and general Google searches. We focused on competitive elections defined as having electoral results within a 10% margin between candidates. Candidates in these competitive elections who used ani-immigrant sentiment were no more likely to win the election than those who did not; in fact, more candidates who campaigned on anti-immigration lost than won in 2022. This data provides evidence that not being anti-immigration is not a hindering campaign decision. It may be quite the opposite.

Immigration often emerges as a prominent talking point among candidates in presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. Former President Donald Trump frequently employs anti-immigration rhetoric and continues to campaign under similar sentiments about the allegedly dangerous porosity of the southern U.S. border. In the presidential debate in June of 2024 against President Joe Biden, Trump mentioned immigration in 42% of the 38 times he spoke while Biden mentioned immigration 13% of the time. In the subsequent debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, out of 38 times when Trump spoke for more than two sentences, he incorporated immigration 10 times (26% of the time). In comparison, Harris did so 4 out of 27 times (15% of the time).

Anti-immigration rhetoric has become practically synonymous with the Republican Party as these candidates often use immigrants as scapegoats for shortcomings in national security, economics, and crime control. While several Democratic candidates support anti-immigration policies as well, it is less commonly a key aspect of their campaigns. The graphic below indicates the overall tone of immigration speeches in Congress and the president by party from the late nineteenth century until 2020. While the data excludes 2022, it encapsulates the general trends of immigration sentiments over time.

Source: Card et al., 2022 published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The top of the graph shows that trends in the rhetoric of Republican and Democratic congressional representatives were negative before the 1950s and became positive in both parties in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s. The divergence in sentiments is clearest in the early 1980s and beyond, with the greatest points of divergence occurring between 2000 and 2020. Card et al. acknowledge that the divergence also represents other trends in the polarization of other issues. However, they find that immigration polarization predated the rise in generic political polarization observed in Gentzkow et al. by more than a decade.

The lower part of the graph shows the variation in presidential sentiments through positive and negative language employed to discuss immigration. The anti-immigrant rhetoric of President Trump has been unseen since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Overall, the graph represents the rise in anti-immigration rhetoric in congressional and presidential speeches by Republicans in recent years as it has become more of a political talking point.

Discourse gathered from the campaign sites and social media accounts of Republican candidates who ran in competitive elections in 2022 with anti-immigration campaigns includes several instances of strongly prejudiced statements. Republican Mark Robertson (Nevada District 1) sought to “turn off the illegal flow of people coming into our country… end chain-migration, visa lotteries and vacation-birth citizenship.” Ending “vacation-birth citizenship” implies a possible erasure of birthright citizenship. Anti-immigrant candidates describe policies like these in misleading ways to garner political support, despite understanding the implausibility of such a policy.

Many of these anti-immigrant candidates take further aim at immigrant children. Republican candidate for the Senate in Pennsylvania Mehmet Oz stated in an ad that, “The Biden administration’s failure on the border is so massive that they are flying illegal immigrants up to airports like this where illegal immigrants are being taken on buses. Now every state has become a border state.” The ad is filmed outside of Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Airport in Pennsylvania, an airport that has been instrumental in the facilitation of protecting unaccompanied migrant children. This airport and the role it plays in the migrant children protection apparatus made it a popular target for Pennsylvania Republicans in 2022. Jim Bognet (R), who ran for Congress in the district that includes the airport itself, ran an ad claiming “Joe Biden & Matt Cartwright still won’t STOP ghost flights of illegal immigrants into (Northeast Pennsylvania).” The reason for this secrecy is that these are minors whose identities are obscured to ensure their security. Many of these children come from vulnerable backgrounds, including a sixteen-year-old victim of sex trafficking seeking protection while awaiting possible testimony and an asylum claim. These children have become the target of a political stunt by the GOP in their attempt to create fear surrounding migration.

Numerous other candidates posit a link between undocumented immigration and drug cartels. Republican Congressman Bryan Steil, who won in Wisconsin District 1, claimed on his campaign website that “drug dealers (and) human traffickers” are crossing the border, framing it in such a way that implies the two are intertwined in their business dealings. Republican Congressman John James, who won reelection in 2022 for Michigan District 10, conducts a similar framing in a tweet highlighting “millions of illegal border crossings, millions of lethal doses of Chinese fentanyl.”

A more brazen example of such framing can be found in campaign material from Blake Masters’ failed bid for Arizona Senate, which shamelessly claims that “More than 225,000 illegal aliens pour into our country every month. And they bring enough fentanyl over each month to kill every American twice over.” In a recent conference on immigration at American University, Dr. Andrew Selee, head of the Migration Policy Institute, notes that these organizations are separate entities. Though they sometimes do collaborate, they are by no means the same and have independent organizational structures. This is a subtle yet important distinction that has been masked to criminalize migrants and conflate them with criminal enterprises such as drug cartels.

The criminalization of migrants was certainly not limited to linking them to cartels. Many candidates rely upon preconceived racist notions of immigrant populations (mostly Latinos) in making generalizations. Such candidates keep their statements on immigration vague, like Nevada Republican Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt: “[the] crisis at the border that has put communities across Nevada in danger…. [Laxalt] fought against dangerous sanctuary city policies and worked to help stop their spread.” The advantages yielded by anti-immigrant candidates in utilizing this sort of vagueness are twofold. The first is that it appeals to a voter base that has already constructed a negative bias toward immigrant populations, and it is this sort of rhetoric that energizes these voters. The second advantage of such vagueness is the removal of the burden of proof from Laxalt or other candidates. Because of this vagueness, the claim becomes difficult to disprove because the meaning can be fluid and easily manipulated at the whim of the candidate.

Similarly, a campaign ad from Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake of Arizona claims to finish the southern border wall and reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy: “the best policy I’ve seen in my 27 years, it worked.” The “Remain in Mexico” policy, a Trump-era directive modified by President Biden, has been largely condemned by human rights groups. Multiple immigration advocates highlighted that the policy forced all migrants to wait on the Mexican side of the border, including those who are escaping persecution in Mexico, in unsafe and uncertified conditions while their asylum case were pending.

Overall, anti-immigration statements like those highlighted in the 2022 midterm election campaigns are prevalent across Republican candidates. Trends indicate a rise in such rhetoric in congressional and presidential speeches with a partisan divergence as Republican candidates are more likely to employ this as a strategy in campaigning. Nonetheless, there was limited success for anti-immigrant campaigns in the 2022 midterm elections. The data shows that anti-immigration rhetoric is not a guarantee for winning elections; in fact, it may be an electoral vulnerability as it does not lead to more success in competitive elections.

Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University in Washington DC.

Joseph Fournier and Mary Capone are research assistants at the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

Sources

“2022 Midterms.” CNN Politics, Accessed September 17, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/election/2022.

Adam Laxalt for NV. “Issues | Adam Laxalt for Senate.” Accessed February 6, 2024. https://www.adamlaxalt.com/issues.

Card, D., Chang, S., Becker, C., Mendelsohn, J., Voigt, R., Boustan, L., Abramitzky, R., & Jurafsky, D. (2022). Computational analysis of 140 years of us political speeches reveals more positive but increasingly polarized framing of immigration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(31). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120510119 

Castaneda, Ernesto. “First Presidential Debate Was Mainly about Immigration, Few Noticed”. AULA Blog Accessed September 25, 2024 https://aulablog.net/2024/07/19/first-presidential-debate-was-mainly-about-immigration-few-noted/.

“Frequently Asked Questions: ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy.” Justice for Immigrants. Accessed October 2, 2024. https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Remain-in-Mexico_en.pdf.

Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Taddy, M. (2019). Measuring group differences in high dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica, 87(4), 1307–1340. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16566

James, John. (JohnJamesMI). “Our border is plagued with chaos – millions of illegal border crossings, millions of lethal doses of Chinese fentanyl & incompetence from the White House. I’m glad to support the House GOP’s Commitment to America to fund border security & put an end to human & drug trafficking.” September 26, 2022. 3:10 PM. Tweet. https://x.com/JohnJamesMI/status/1574476402392457217.

Jordan, Miriam. “’Ghost Flights’? The Facts Behind Transporting Migrant Children”. New York Times. June 24, 2022. Accessed February 4, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/ghost-flights-migrant-children.html?login=google&auth=login-google#.

“Kari Lake January 2022 Ad.” Accessed February 6, 2024. https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&id=313372640712991&media_type=all.

“Remain in Mexico” Human Rights Watch. Accessed October 2, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/tag/remain-mexico

Robertson, Mark. “Mark’s Stances – Robertson for Congress.”Accessed February 11, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220014/https://robertsonforcongress.com/stances/

Selee, Andrew. “Wilson Center Discussion on Immigration Policy”. September 23, 2024. C-SPAN, 58:43. https://www.c-span.org/video/?538598-1/wilson-center-discussion-immigration-policy.

Steil, Bryan. “The Issues: Bryan’s Vision for America – Securing Our Border”. Accessed September 26, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220838/https://www.bryansteil.com/issues/.

“STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – Dr. Oz for Senate.” Accessed February 11, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20221028022107/https://doctoroz.com/issue/stop-illegal-immigration/.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on October 3, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Immigration, Regional Snapshot, United States

Tagged Democratic Governance, donald-trump, Economy, Elections, Immigration, Immigration (U.S.), joe-biden, kamala-harris, news, Politics, Regional Relations

Posted by clalsstaff on October 3, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/10/03/anti-immigration-rhetoric-is-an-electoral-vulnerability-evidence-from-the-2022-midterm-elections/

Voter Concerns: The Economy or The Government’s Role in Shaping It?

By Ernesto Castañeda

September 27, 2024

On the morning of September 9, 2024, a Republican voter called into C-SPAN’s Washington Journal and said, “Democrats used to be all about the workers, but now it’s just socialism.” This short piece is respectfully directed to those who may share that sentiment. First, it’s important to note that, in principle, socialism is centered around workers, but it asks that workers own the companies they work at. Democrats are not socialists. Even the party’s most progressive figures, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), identify as Democratic Socialists and advocate for the U.S. to adopt some of the social safety nets seen in Northern European countries and fight monopolies and for workers’ rights to create a tempered capitalism. Now, let’s turn to the real concerns about the economy as we approach the upcoming elections.

The economy is doing well

The U.S. economy is objectively performing very well, largely due to the Biden-Harris administration’s adoption and successful implementation of policies championed by figures like Sanders, Warren, and AOC. Compared to other countries, the U.S. has recovered more quickly from the pandemic’s effects, which were driven by lockdowns, labor shortages, and disruptions to global supply chains—all of which contributed to inflation. These policies, alongside immigration, have supported healthy economic growth. Notably, inflation and interest rates are decreasing without the economy slipping into a recession—an almost ideal outcome often referred to as a “soft landing.”

Nonetheless, some citizens and commentators still insist that the economy is weak, and voters often mention “the economy” as their main concern.

A shift in expectations on the economy

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was already common for millions of Americans to live paycheck to paycheck and carry significant debt. The pandemic, however, reshaped Americans economic expectations in at least three important ways: 1) The imminent threat to life placed greater value on human life and people’s time; 2) It exposed our heavy dependence on foreign producers, global supply chains, and essential local workers; and 3) It led to a bipartisan recognition that the government can and should take action to address hunger, unemployment, public wellbeing, inequality and support the working and middle class, as well as small and large business and postpone evictions in times of collective suffering.

Let me elaborate on point three. The economic policies and incentives—such as support for businesses both large and small, direct checks to families, and the child tax credit—implemented in a bipartisan effort during the pandemic by both the Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris administrations significantly raised economic standards and cut child poverty in half. These policies also reflected what C. Wright Mills advocated in the 1960s: when unemployment is widespread, it should be viewed as a social issue rather than a matter of personal responsibility, worth, or morality. In contrast to the neoliberal focus on market fundamentalism, these pandemic-era measures revived Keynesian principles, emphasizing a return to full employment and expanding support for policies reminiscent of FDR’s New Deal—where the government plays a role in reducing inequality and supporting the working and middle class.

The real cause of frustration

One of Joe Biden’s boldest and most significant accomplishments may have been his repeated assertion that “trickle-down economics has never worked. It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out.” This is a change in the long-held belief in individualistic ideologies, such as the notion of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.” Stemming from this ideological shift, I believe much of the unease felt by the working and lower-middle class about “the economy” stems from frustration over the end of many pandemic-era cash transfers and stimulus checks, which were initiated by both the Trump and Biden administrations. These transfers and the forced savings due to the lockdowns allowed some families to pay credit card debt and even increase their savings, which for many are now depleted again.

Ironically, it was the Republican Party that blocked the extension of the child tax credit, a key measure backed by Democrats to support working families. Yet, many voters remain unaware of this. Meanwhile, tax-evading billionaires, including figures like Trump, exacerbate the economic challenges rather than providing solutions. A modest increase in taxes on billionaires would help fund essential programs like the child tax credit, and contrary to popular rhetoric, this is not socialism—it’s a practical approach to ensuring fair contributions from the wealthiest.

Outdated and Misguided Economic Narratives

Trump has attempted to link his scapegoating of immigrants to the current economic challenges, falsely claiming that immigrants are taking jobs from those most in need, particularly African Americans, Hispanics, and union workers. However, this argument does not hold up—unemployment rates are low, and wages are rising. As a result, most people are unlikely to be swayed by this rhetoric. Those who do buy into it likely already held anti-immigration views prior to the pandemic and/or are victims of structural changes stemming from Reaganomics.

By invoking fears that the U.S. could become “like Venezuela,” Trump taps into concerns among immigrants who lived Venezuela’s prosperity before Chavismo or those fleeing other authoritarian regimes. However, Republicans risk losing these voters by frequently portraying Venezuelan immigrants as criminals—members of the Tren de Aragua gang—or as individuals released from prisons and mental institutions by Maduro and sent to the U.S. This narrative echoes real historical events such as Cuba’s Marielitos or British prisoners sent to Australia as settlers, as well as xenophobic stereotypes and prejudices once directed at Irish, Italian, and Mexican immigrants. History, however, shows that the children of immigrants often experience rapid social mobility and thus contribute as much, if not more, to society than the children of native-born citizens.

Some attempt to alarm undecided voters by claiming that Harris is advocating for price controls. In reality, she is focused on preventing monopolies and negotiating better prices when the government buys in bulk, as demonstrated successfully with insulin. This pragmatic approach has broad support across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Harris and Walz are not pushing radical leftist ideas; rather, they are promoting a moderate populism that is not linked to exclusionary Christian nationalism.

“Opportunity economy”

In her speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh on September 25, 2024, Harris stated:

“The American economy is the most powerful force for innovation and wealth creation in human history. We just need to move past the failed policies that have proven not to work. And like generations before us, let us be inspired by what is possible. As president, I will be guided by my core values of fairness, dignity, and opportunity. I promise you I will take a pragmatic approach. I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation, because I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology but instead pursue practical solutions to problems.”

With this statement, she invoked FDR’s legacy while offering a centrist, pragmatic vision for addressing the economic challenges facing Americans.

While some commentators argue that Harris and Walz haven’t provided enough details on their economic policy, they are actually offering a balanced approach that appeals to both corporations and small businesses. Their plan promotes U.S. manufacturing and nearshoring, aims to reduce the climate impact of production and consumption, and provides much-needed support to the low and middle class in regions hit hardest by deindustrialization. Trump talks much about caring about the working class but did little to benefit them structurally and long-term while in the White House. Policies like exempting tips and overtime from taxation fit within Harris’ framework, but Harris also advocates for more ambitious measures to really level the economic playing field a bit more. Harris calls this vision the ‘opportunity economy,’ a pragmatic approach to economic and industrial policy that many former Bernie and Trump supporters could, in principle, support.

Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University in Washington DC.

Edited by Robert Albro, CLALS Associate Director of Research, and Edgar Aguilar, International Economics master’s student at American University.

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on September 27, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Immigration, Regional Snapshot, United States

Tagged Democratic Governance, donald-trump, Economy, Elections, Immigration (U.S.), joe-biden, kamala-harris, news, Politics, Regional Relations

Posted by clalsstaff on September 27, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/09/27/voter-concerns-the-economy-or-the-governments-role-in-shaping-it/

Deportaciones Masivas Podrían Crear una Recesión en EE.UU

Ernesto Castañeda

Entrevista de Diana Castrillón a Ernesto Castañeda publicada por Stornia 13 de agosto de 2024 editada y expandida por Castañeda.

Diana Castrillón: “La inmigración irregular es uno de los temas más importantes de las campañas presidenciales de los candidatos, el republicano Donald Trump y la demócrata Kamala Harris. Por un lado, la administración de Biden-Harris restringió el número de solicitantes de asilo que pueden ingresar al país. Por otro lado, los republicanos están prometiendo el “mayor programa de deportación masiva en la historia de Estados Unidos” si es que ganan la Casa Blanca este otoño.

El sentimiento antiinmigrante en Estados Unidos está en aumento. Este año, el 55% de los estadounidenses dijeron que les gustaría ver una disminución de la inmigración, una novedad desde el 2001. Esto se debe en parte a la creencia que los inmigrantes, en particular los indocumentados, son una carga para los recursos del gobierno y no contribuyen en nada.

Sin embargo, un nuevo estudio del Instituto de Política Fiscal y Económica muestra que es todo lo contrario. Según el informe, los inmigrantes indocumentados contribuyeron con casi $100 mil millones de dólares en impuestos durante 2022 y a su vez, no pudieron acceder a muchos de los programas que financiaron sus dólares de impuestos.

De esos casi $100 mil millones, $60 mil millones se destinaron al gobierno federal. Por cada millón de inmigrantes indocumentados, los servicios federales reciben $8.900 millones de dólares adicionales en ingresos fiscales. Más de un tercio de los impuestos que pagan estos inmigrantes se destinan a programas a los que no pueden acceder, como la Seguridad Social ($25,700 millones de dólares), salud Medicare ($6,400 millones de dólares) y el seguro de desempleo ($1,800 millones de dólares).

Los indocumentados suelen pagar tasas impositivas más altas que los ciudadanos estadounidenses. En 40 de los 50 estados del país, los inmigrantes irregulares pagan tasas de impuestos estatales y locales más altos que el 1% de los hogares con mayores ingresos. Además, no pueden recibir muchos créditos fiscales. No se dan cuenta que pueden reclamar reembolsos y tampoco tienen acceso a ayuda fiscal.

“En total, la contribución fiscal federal de los inmigrantes indocumentados ascendió a $59,400 millones de dólares en 2022, mientras que la contribución fiscal estatal y local se situó en 37,300 millones de dólares”, escribieron los autores del estudio. “Estas cifras dejan claro que las decisiones sobre política migratoria tienen implicaciones sustanciales para los ingresos públicos en todos los niveles de gobierno”, menciona el informe.”

En entrevista con Stornia, Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director del Laboratorio de la Inmigración y el Centro de Estudios Latino Americanos y Latinos de American University en Washington DC, aseguró que los inmigrantes son necesarios y esenciales para el crecimiento económico de Estados Unidos.

Diana Castrillón: ¿Cómo paga un inmigrante indocumentado impuestos, si como su nombre lo dice, son migrantes irregulares?

Ernesto Castañeda: Los indocumentados pagan impuestos cada vez que compran algo, está el impuesto a la compra, el porcentaje depende de cada localidad. Si compran casas, que lo pueden hacer, también pagan impuestos, si rentan o pagan renta, también hay un porcentaje que se debe pagar en impuestos al gobierno local y federal. La gente indocumentada que trabaja en compañías formales, que son muchos, pueden tener una identificación temporal para pagar impuestos (ITIN), que funciona de manera similar al número de Seguridad Social, entonces pagan impuestos a la nómina como cualquier otra persona trabajando en Estados Unidos. Hay gente que usa documentos de identidad falsos o que no les corresponden, pero alguien se los presta, y así pagan a las arcas de Seguro Social y programas de retiro y de salud, pero como el número es falso o no es de ellos, no tienen acceso a esos beneficios.

Entonces, no solo pagan a estos servicios, sino que muchos inmigrantes no piden ese apoyo. Por lo tanto, tienen una contribución mayor a los ciudadanos que pagan, pero quien luego si retiran esas ayudas. Es una ganancia que el Gobierno Federal y el Tesoro aceptan abiertamente que sucede.

¿Entonces los inmigrantes indocumentados están pagando más impuestos que los mismos ciudadanos americanos?

Si, la tasa de muchos indocumentados que pagan impuestos es más alta que las tasas que paga la gente más rica del país. Claro, los ingresos son diferentes pero la tasa es a veces mayor o muy similar, a la de los ciudadanos. Los ciudadanos llenan sus declaraciones de impuestos y muchas veces piden reembolsos, por ejemplo, por gastos de negocios o les dan un crédito por tener hijos, pero muchos de los indocumentados no hacen esos reclamos porque no quieren que más adelante se les niegue la ciudadanía por haber pedido ayudas o servicios. Por ese temor, tampoco piden programas de apoyo para sus hijos, que ya son ciudadanos y tienen derecho a esos servicios. Hemos comprobado en nuestras investigaciones en el Laboratorio de Inmigración que los inmigrantes usan menos servicios sociales que los nacionales (Castañeda y Cione, 2024).

Pareciera que los indocumentados están entre la espada y la pared ahora con la campaña electoral tanto por el lado de los republicanos como por el lado de los demócratas, ¿hay preocupación en la comunidad?

Algunos políticos usan a los inmigrantes indocumentados como chivos expiatorios en tiempos electorales. Por un lado, Trump hace esta amenaza de deportaciones masivas, pero es poco probable que lo haga, eso mismo lo había prometido anteriormente y cuando fue presidente no deportó a tanta gente. Eso no significa que la gente no tenga miedo ahora y si gana creará un terror real entre la población que ya de por sí vive con mucho miedo a que los encuentren como indocumentados a ellos o a alguien cercano.

En cuanto situaciones de asilo, en efecto, mucha gente está escapando de situaciones difíciles en Afganistán, Ucrania, Cuba, Venezuela, Haití o Nicaragua. Muchos con pruebas de persecución, y ahora el gobierno ha cambiado cómo tramita buscar asilo. La frontera está cerrada a muchas de esas peticiones de asilo como se hizo durante la pandemia. Por ende, estamos viendo menos cruces irregulares en la frontera. La administración Biden-Harris piensa que eso les puedes ayudar electoralmente para que los republicanos no les hagan la crítica de que la frontera está supuestamente abierta y los que indocumentados o quienes piden asilo están recibiendo comida y vivienda en algunas ciudades. Es un momento difícil, y no es sostenible. En algún momento van a tener que reabrir la frontera al asilo humanitario, porque a lo que llaman el derecho nacional e internacional es a recibir a la gente que está pidiendo asilo. Tras procesar sus aplicaciones, a unos los aceptarán a otros no.

Trump necesitaría mucho dinero y mucha policía, casi tendría que crear un estado totalitario para poder deportar a toda la gente que está aquí sin papeles migratorios en regla. Muchas de estas personas tienen más de 10 años aquí, tienen hijos ciudadanos, trabajan, contribuyen, por lo cual, deportar masivamente o dejar de recibir inmigrantes es un gran ataque a Estados Unidos. La economía se podría contraer. Se podría crear una recesión porque como mencionamos anteriormente, los migrantes pagan miles de millones en impuestos, pero los impuestos son un porcentaje pequeño de lo que la gente gana. La mayoría de los inmigrantes ganan, lo gastan en las ciudades donde viven, y con el trabajo que hacen generan crecimiento económico, servicios, entretenimiento y hacen que la economía crezca.

Hace algunos días JD Vance, la fórmula vicepresidencial de Donald Trump justificaba el plan de deportación masiva y decía que los indocumentados le están robando plazas de trabajo a los ciudadanos americanos. ¿Existe esa fila de estadounidenses esperando a que deporten inmigrantes para tomar sus puestos de trabajo?

Esto no funciona así. Trump y Vance están equivocados sobre que los inmigrantes les quitan trabajos a los afroamericanos o a otros ciudadanos. Es un estereotipo fácil de vender, algún votante pudo haber tenido una experiencia donde pareciera que pudo ser el caso, sin embargo, si vemos a la economía en general, la inmigración genera nuevos empleos.

En Florida, está en efecto la ley anti-inmigrante más estricta del país. De hecho, han salido muchos indocumentados del estado, y hoy no hay suficiente mano de obra para la construcción, para servicios como hoteles, para la agricultura en los cultivos de naranjas. Entonces los negocios que necesitaban esa mano de obra para generar riqueza ahora no pueden tener su negocio al 100%. Propietarios de granjas han tenido que cerrar porque les falta mano de obra para trabajar, algunos negocios pequeños han tenido que limitar sus horas de servicios. Si no hay construcción no hay viviendas, seguirá habiendo inflación por las viviendas existentes. Los inmigrantes llegan y necesitan un lugar donde vivir, quien les corte el pelo, quien les venda comida, entonces generan trabajo e ingreso para los comerciantes.

Los migrantes emprenden con más negocios (desde pequeños negocios hasta las grandes empresas) que los nacidos en Estados Unidos. También sabemos que los inmigrantes emplean más gente que los dueños de negocios del país. No es que haya un pastel que esté limitado y se lo reparta el número de gente que llega, entre más personas lleguen, incrementa el tamaño del pastel entonces hay más pastel para todos. No es una competencia desleal y eso se ve en las tasas de desempleo.

Ahora bajo la administración Biden-Harris tenemos una tasa de desempleo para afroamericanos históricamente baja, una tasa de desempleo de latinos muy baja y no hay muchos ciudadanos de origen europeo que están desempleados porque algún migrante esté tomando su trabajo, si noq que usualmente no encuentran trabajo porque no los estudios o capacitación suficiente para tomar un empleo bien pagado, o por el contrario, porque tienen demasiada educación y no hay un empleo con alto ingreso que les convenga tomar. O porque se rehúsan a mudarse dentro del país para buscar trabajo. Las tasas de desempleo son bajas en general y de lo que se quejan los empresarios es que no tienen suficiente personal para expandir sus negocios. Esto también afecta a los ciudadanos buscando servicios, teniendo que esperar más en restaurantes porque no hay suficientes meseros o cocineros.

¿Cuál es la respuesta para el manejo de inmigración, más visas temporales de empleos, legalizar a los indocumentados o hacer más muro en la frontera?

La solución a los casos de inmigración irregular a largo plazo es aumentar las visas temporales de empleo para que la gente venga de manera legal. Existen programas como la Visa H2A, H2B son ejemplos de visas que funciona muy bien, la gente viene, trabaja y se regresa a su país, porque ya ganaron ingresos en dólares pudieron ahorrar suficiente y ahora quieren estar con su familia.

El problema es que hay límites, hay cuotas para esas visas, son para cierto tipo de empleos, y hay más demanda de esa gente trabajadora temporal de lo que la que la ley permite. Para que aumenten los topes, los números de esas visas, el Congreso tiene que actuar. Tiene que actuar la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado, y tienen que estar de acuerdo los demócratas, de que es lo que harían, y un número suficiente de republicanos. Pero ellos se niegan a hacerlo, porque parece que no quieren solucionar el tema, solo lo quieren usar de manera electoral.

Para las personas que ya están aquí, la solución es legalizarlos. Al darle papeles o permisos laborales a quienes están aquí, de esa manera muchos ganarían más dinero, tendrían más confianza de invertir, pagarían más impuestos. Esto sería una inyección a la economía americana, y podrían traer a sus familiares de manera legal y expandir la base trabajadora un poco más.

Y eso es algo que ni Trump ni Vance entienden, nunca lo harán. A diferencia del presidente Ronald Reagan, quien sí firmó una ley como esa, aunque a regañadientes. Tampoco es algo sobre lo que han querido hablar mucho Kamala Harris ni Tim Walz en la campaña porque la gente lo usa como un ataque muy simple con ellos, pero los dos tienen un historial político de apoyar este tipo de medidas.

¿Y con esta legalización de indocumentados en Estados Unidos ganan países de América Latina o pierden?

Las remesas representan solo el 4% de lo que los inmigrantes generan en Estados Unidos. Un migrante que está más establecido o es profesional, manda remesas menos seguido, entonces son ayudas a familias en pobreza. Las remesas representan separaciones familiares por años hasta que el migrante termina regresando o trata de traer a la familia entera. Es una ayuda a corto plazo, pero pone a las familias que se dividen en dificultad emocional y cualquier país que pierde migrantes, desde agricultores hasta científicos, médicos, como en Cuba que ha perdido un par de millones de migrantes profesionales durante el último par de años debilita cada vez más su economía. También pasa en la economía venezolana, que ha sido debilitada entre otras muchas cosas por la emigración. Las remesas son ayudas de corto plazo, pero la verdadera ayuda económica se da en donde llegan los migrantes, en este caso Estados Unidos.

De acuerdo con el estudio de Instituto de Política Fiscal y Económica, la autorización de trabajo sería beneficiosa para todos, pues otorgar a los inmigrantes indocumentados una autorización de trabajo resultaría en un aumento de sus contribuciones fiscales de $40,000 millones de dólares a $137,000 millones de dólares por año, ya que la autorización de trabajo aumentaría los salarios.

Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director del Laboratorio de Inmigración y el Centro de Estudios Latino Americanos y Latinos, American University en Washington DC.

This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.

The English version of this text is available at the following link: https://aulablog.net/2024/08/26/mass-deportations-could-create-a-us-recession/

Leave a comment

by clalsstaff on August 26, 2024 • Permalink

Posted in Immigration, Regional Snapshot, United States

Tagged Democratic Governance, Economy, Elections, Immigration (U.S.), Politics, Regional Relations

Posted by clalsstaff on August 26, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/08/26/deportaciones-masivas-podrian-crear-una-recesion-en-ee-uu/

Search for:
Pages
- About
- Meet the Staff
Categories
Categories
Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 10.1K other subscribers

Center for Latin American & Latino Studies Website
- Visit the CLALS Website
Visit the Clals Facebook Page

Visit the Clals Facebook Page
Follow Us on Twitter
Tweets by AU_CLALS
Related Links
Media Links
- Visit the CLALS Website
Other Latin American Studies Blogs
Tags
access Accountability & Corruption Armed groups asylum asylum-seekers borders Brazil Business & Finance China Civil Society Constitutions COVID-19 Crime & Violence Cuba Culture Democratic Governance Development Dictatorship Diplomacy donald-trump economics Economy Ecuador Education Elections Elites El Salvador Energy Environment & Climate espanol featured finance Gender global-inequality Health Care history Human Rights Illicit Drugs Immigration Immigration (U.S.) indigenous Indigenous Peoples inequality joe-biden Journalism Judicial System kamala-harris Labor latin-america Latinx legislation LGBTQ Mexico Migration Military news Northern Triangle Organization of American States Organized Crime Peace & Conflict Resolution policy politica Politics Poverty & Inequality refugees Regional Relations Religion Socialism Taxation Technology Tourism Trade trump United Nations workforce

	Reva Resstack on Faustian Bargain
	abdessamed gtumsila on Beyond the ITT Initiative: How…
	Michael - What is Re… on Growing Numbers of Afghan Migr…
	Michael - Writ of Ha… on What is a migrant? What is ICE…
	Matthew T Rader on Where Is Cuba’s Economic…

All posts tagged Democratic Governance

1. Migrant

2. Immigrants

3. Undocumented Immigrants, Unauthorized Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants

4. Asylum Seekers

5. Refugees

6. Unaccompanied Children

7. Family Separation

8. Immigration Detention

9. Coyote

10. The Alphabet Soup of Government Players

The Taxing Debate on Migration in the U.S.

Pages

Categories

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Comments

Center for Latin American & Latino Studies Website

Related Links

Media Links

Other Latin American Studies Blogs

Tags