Proyecto 2025

Proyecto 2025 y su Efecto en las Familias con Inmigrantes

Katheryn Olmos, Luc Thomas, Ernesto Castañeda, & Robert Albro*

Noviembre 1, 2024

FOTO POR EUROMAIDAN PRESS | EUROMAIDANPRESS.COM

Proyecto 2025 es una agenda de políticas públicas desarrollada por la Heritage Foundation, destinada a ser implementada durante los primeros 180 días del posible segundo mandato presidencial de Donald Trump, en caso de que gane las elecciones del 2024. Este manifiesto tiene 922 páginas y está dividido en cinco secciones, la primera de las cuales se titula “Tomar las riendas del Gobierno.” Si se pone en efecto, este plan tiene el potencial de transformar por completo la estructura del gobierno federal y cambiar el país en su totalidad. 

Los Lazos con Trump

El 5 de julio, el expresidente Trump declaró: “No sé nada sobre el Proyecto 2025. No tengo idea de quién está detrás de esto” (Trump). Reiteró este sentimiento durante el debate presidencial del 10 de septiembre, afirmando que él no tiene “nada que ver con el Proyecto 2025” (NBC). 

Sin embargo, tras bastidores, la situación parece bastante diferente. En una grabación filtrada por el Center for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, exdirector de la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto durante la administración de Trump, miembro del comité de plataforma del RNC y coautor del Proyecto 2025, reveló que Trump ha “bendecido” a la Heritage Foundation y que “[Trump] apoya mucho lo que hacemos.” Vought también indicó que “no le preocupa” que Trump se distancie públicamente de la iniciativa e indica que esto no debe tomarse en serio.” [Trump] ha estado en nuestra organización. Ha recaudado dinero para nuestra organización.”  

Además, varios funcionarios de alto rango de la administración de Trump han sido clave para dar forma al Proyecto 2025. Entre estos contribuyentes se encuentran el ex-asesor de la Casa Blanca Peter Navarro, el ex secretario de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano Ben Carson, el ex jefe de personal de la Oficina de Administración de Personal (OPM por sus siglas en inglés) Paul Dans – ahora director del Proyecto 2025 – y Spencer Chretien, exasistente especial, que actualmente se desempeña como director asociado del Proyecto 2025. 

¿Cuáles son sus implicaciones para la política de inmigración de los Estados Unidos? 

El Proyecto 2025 tiene importantes implicaciones para la política de inmigración, entre ellas:

Finalización del Muro de Trump 

“Asignación obligatoria para la infraestructura del sistema de muro fronterizo. Los fondos asignados se utilizarían para financiar la construcción de sistemas, tecnología y personal adicionales para el muro fronterizo en lugares estratégicos” (página 147). 

Lo que dice: Se propone aumentar la financiación para ampliar el muro fronterizo entre los Estados Unidos y México, que aumentaría la vigilancia fronteriza y el contrato de más miembros de la patrulla fronteriza. 

Impacto: La finalización del muro fronterizo puede llevar a que los migrantes decididos busquen métodos más peligrosos para cruzar la frontera, lo que resultaría en un aumento de abuso y violencia hacia los inmigrantes. Las expansiones del muro de Trump actualmente tienen 30 pies de altura y ya han resultado en un aumento de muertes y lesiones graves debido a caídas de migrantes (NIH). Solo en El Paso, en los siete meses posteriores al aumento de la altura del muro, la Patrulla Fronteriza y personal de salud han respondido a 229 lesiones por caídas del muro, incluyendo piernas rotas y lesiones cerebrales o de la columna vertebral (NBC).  

Con la construcción de segmentos adicionales del muro, los inmigrantes indocumentados decididos a cruzar la frontera se enfrentarán a estos riesgos. Más segmentos del muro podrían empujar a aun más personas al desierto de Sonora, aumentando la mortalidad migrante (UCLA). La expansión del muro de Trump profundiza las tensiones que ya existen entre Los Estados Unidos, México y otros países latinoamericanos, ya que el muro se percibe como un símbolo de división en lugar de cooperación. En lugar de tener fronteras mortales, políticas de inmigración humanas y efectivas podrían proteger mejor los derechos humanos y fomentar relaciones internacionales positivas. 

Aumento de la Militarización de la frontera  

“Departamento de Defensa: Asistir de manera agresiva en la construcción del sistema de muro fronterizo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos. Además, reconocer explícitamente y ajustar el personal y las prioridades para participar activamente en la defensa de las fronteras de Estados Unidos, incluyendo el uso de personal y equipamiento militar para prevenir cruces ilegales entre los puntos de entrada y canalizar todo el tráfico transfronterizo hacia los puntos de entrada legales” (páginas 166-167). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 pide un aumento de presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, que probablemente se utilizará para reforzar protocolos de inmigración.  

Impacto: Habrá una mayor presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, con más autorizaciones directas al uso de fuerza militar, lo que podría llevar a encuentros más violentos con inmigrantes, independientemente de las circunstancias. Esto pone a los migrantes en un mayor riesgo de encuentros extremos y violentos con la patrulla fronteriza. Además, existe incertidumbre sobre cómo podrían cambiar los centros de detención en respuesta a estas medidas. La militarización de la frontera podría resultar en una mayor militarización de los centros de detención, lo que incrementaría la probabilidad de situaciones hostiles y abusivas para los migrantes en dichos centros. 

Deportación Acelerada de Inmigrantes y Deportaciones Masivas  

“Para maximizar el uso eficiente de sus recursos, ICE debe hacer pleno uso de las autoridades de Deportación Acelerada (Expedited Removal ER) existentes. La agencia ha limitado el uso de ER a extranjeros elegibles detenidos dentro de las 100 millas de la frontera. Este no es un requisito legal” (página 142). 

“ICE debe ser identificadas como responsable de enforzar regulaciones civiles de inmigración, las que incluyen el arresto civil, la detención y la expulsión de infractores en cualquier lugar de los Estados Unidos, sin orden judicial cuando corresponda” (página 142). 

Lo que dice: La política actual de ICE sobre la Deportación Acelerada (ER) que aplica en un radio de 100 millas de la frontera se ampliaría bajo el Proyecto 2025 para permitir que ICE detenga a presuntos migrantes indocumentados sin una orden judicial en cualquier parte del país. 

Impacto: El proceso de ER ya es controversial, ya que permite a los oficiales de inmigración arrestar y deportar a inmigrantes indocumentados sin una orden o audiencia judicial. Además, “a diferencia de otras órdenes de expulsión, una orden de ER normalmente no puede ser apelada y conlleva una prohibición de cinco años para el reingreso en la mayoría de las circunstancias” (American Immigration Council). El proceso de ER es inconstitucional, ya que viola el derecho al debido proceso (due process) (Houston Law Review). Los oficiales de ICE podrían ser los que deciden el destino de los solicitantes de asilo, u otros inmigrantes con circunstancias especiales en lugar de un juez de inmigración, quien debería estar tomando la decisión. A medida que ICE y el control migratorio se vuelven más poderosos, se aumenta el temor sobre el impacto en las comunidades que ya son marginalizadas, donde una autoridad sin supervisión podría causar más daño y desigualdad. 

Restaurar el Título 42 

“Crear una autoridad similar a la del Título 42. Autoridad de Salud Pública que se ha utilizado durante la pandemia de COVID-19 para expulsar a extranjeros ilegales a través de la frontera inmediatamente cuando no se cumplen ciertas condiciones sanitarias, como la pérdida del control operativo de la frontera” (página 147). 

Lo que dice: El Título 42 fue una política aplicada durante la pandemia de COVID-19 que restringió la inmigración para ayudar a prevenir la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, específicamente COVID-19. El Proyecto 2025 exige que se restaure un proceso como el Título 42, pero no solo para circunstancias excepcionales de emergencias de salud pública. Más bien, se aplicaría a cualquier circunstancia en la que se considere necesaria la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes. 

Impacto: Mientras el Título 42 estaba en vigor, el gobierno solicitó la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo que llegaban a la frontera sin una audiencia judicial, lo que violaba el derecho constitucional al debido proceso. La política menciona específicamente su aplicación en casos de “pérdida del control operacional de la frontera”, lo que podría interpretarse de manera amplia y utilizar siempre que las autoridades lo consideren necesario, independientemente de los hechos de cualquier caso individual. La vaguedad en torno a las circunstancias de la aplicación de dicha política podría terminar con la posibilidad de pedir el asilo en la frontera. 

Eliminación de “Zonas Sensibles” 

“Todos los memorandos de ICE que identifican ‘zonas sensibles’ donde el personal de ICE tiene prohibido operar, deben ser revocados. Confiar con el buen juicio de los oficiales en el campo para evitar situaciones inapropiadas” (página 142). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 establece claramente que quieren deshacerse de las “zonas sensibles” y las zonas libres de ICE.  

Impacto: Las áreas protegidas existen para garantizar que miembros de la comunidad tengan acceso libre a servicios esenciales, como (y no limitados a) escuelas, instalaciones médicas, lugares de culto o estudio religiosos (CBP). A ICE no se le permite entrar a estas áreas sin el permiso adecuado, ni llevar a cabo típicas acciones policiales como arrestos, aprehensiones civiles, registros, inspecciones, incautaciones, entrega de documentos de acusación o citaciones, entrevistas y aplicación de control migratorio. La eliminación de las “zonas sensibles” permitirá que las autoridades saqueen estos lugares, que se consideran refugios seguros para los inmigrantes. 

Aumento de Espacio en los Centros de Detención 

“El Congreso debería ordenar y financiar espacio adicional en camas para los extranjeros detenidos. ICE debería recibir fondos para un aumento significante en los espacios de detención, elevando el número de camas disponibles a diario a 100,000” (página 143). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 tiene como objetivo por lo menos duplicar el número de migrantes posibles retenidos en centros de detención (hasta 100,000). En este momento, la cuota diaria de espacio para inmigrantes en detención enfrentados a la deportación es de 41,500 camas (Congreso). 

Impacto: Al aumentar la capacidad de detención, el Proyecto 2025 busca expandir e institucionalizar la detención de inmigrantes indocumentados o solicitantes de asilo. Con una mayor capacidad, se podría decir que proteger la “seguridad nacional” es una justificación para poder perfilar a la gente por motivos raciales y detener a migrantes inocentes para poder llenar los centros de detención. Además, a medida que aumenta el número de migrantes en los centros de detención, también se aumenta el riesgo de sobre populación, servicios de salud inadecuados y acceso limitado a asesores legales. Esto también puede resultar en un proceso de detención más largo, donde las personas son encarceladas en centros por términos indefinidos. Estos centros de detención, muchos de los cuales anteriormente eran prisiones privadas (ACLU), aíslan a los inmigrantes indocumentados y los mantienen en condiciones inhumanas. Esta sección del Proyecto 2025 muestra que se planea un gran aumento en el número de personas detenidas en centros de detención que suelen ser inhumanos y además de posibles deportaciones. 

Eliminar las Protecciones para los Menores No Acompañados 

“El Congreso debe derogar la Sección 235 de la Ley de Reautorización de Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA), que proporciona numerosos beneficios de inmigración a los niños extranjeros no acompañados y solo ayuda a incentivar más padres a enviar a sus hijos a través de la frontera ilegalmente y sin acompañantes. Con demasiada frecuencia, estos niños se convierten en víctimas de la trata de personas, lo que significa que la TVPRA ha fracasado” (página 148). 

Lo que dice: La Sección 235  de la Ley de Reautorización para la Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA) actualmente proporciona protección y asistencia a los menores no acompañados, niños que cruzan la frontera sin un padre o tutor, que corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de la trata de personas y son más vulnerables a la explotación. Su revocación eliminaría estas importantes salvaguardias para los menores no acompañados. 

Impacto: Sin estas protecciones, los niños detenidos en la frontera ya no se beneficiarán de una ley de retorno seguro a su país de origen. Además, estos niños y jóvenes perderían el acceso a tener hogares seguros, servicios de atención médica, abogados y defensores legales, ajustes de estatus migratorio, protecciones de asilo y otros tipos de asistencias sociales que los protegen de la explotación, incluida la trata de personas. Además, la eliminación de las protecciones legales para los menores no acompañados dificultaría el proceso de investigación de las autoridades, para poder llevar acción legal contra esquemas de trata de personas. En lugar de quitar ayudas, el gobierno debería centrarse en crear un sistema que procese eficazmente a los niños, proteja derechos humanos y minimice los traumas adicionales para que los niños no acompañados se mantengan alejados de mayores peligros. 

Eliminación de Visas para Sobrevivientes de Trata de Personas y Otros Delitos 

“Eliminar las visas T y U. La victimización no debe ser una base para un beneficio de inmigración. Si un extranjero que fue víctima de tráfico o delito está cooperando activamente y de manera significante con las autoridades como testigo, la visa S ya está disponible y debe ser utilizada. A la espera de la eliminación de las visas T y U, La Secretaría debería restringir significativamente la elegibilidad para cada visa para poder prevenir el fraude” (página 141). 

“También se ha puesto énfasis en la eliminación de las barreras legales a la inmigración, como el uso de beneficios públicos” (página 143).

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 propone eliminar las visas actuales otorgadas a las víctimas de la trata de personas (visa T) y otros delitos graves (visa U) que asisten a las fuerzas del orden público a investigar y enjuiciar a quienes cometen tales delitos. Este documento argumenta que la victimización no es una forma legítima de calificarse para beneficios de inmigración, en cambio, se sostiene que este tipo de visas son una ruta fácil hacia el fraude. 

Impacto: Las visas T y U existen para que las víctimas indocumentadas de crímenes en los EE. UU. no tengan miedo de denunciar por temor a la persecución y la deportación. La eliminación de estas visas aumentaría la probabilidad de que las personas indocumentadas ya vulnerables caigan victimas al mismo crimen, perpetuando un ciclo de violencia.  El Proyecto 2025 propone utilizar la visa S que actualmente ya es disponible en lugar de las visas T y U. La visa S es una visa temporal que permite a los inmigrantes que hayan sido testigos de un delito residir en los EE. UU. mientras ayudan con investigaciones criminales o terroristas. Mientras que la visa S suena similar a las visas T y U, esta visa ignora las circunstancias de la victimización de los migrantes y no reconoce la protección de los derechos humanos. Las visas T y U también tienen como objetivo ayudar a las víctimas de esos delitos a reconstruir sus vidas, proporcionando acceso a atención médica, asistencia legal o cualquier otra atención dada la situación, mientras que la visa S no lo hace. Además, las visas T y U fomentan cooperación y confianza con las autoridades, mientras que las visas S son mucho más restrictivas y pueden aumentan la vulnerabilidad de las víctimas, ya que los perpetradores de los delitos saben que sus víctimas no tienen derecho a utilizar el sistema de justicia de forma “normal” como un ciudadano.  

Dar prioridad a los inmigrantes “altamente calificados” 

“El programa H-1B, del que se abusa a menudo, debería transformarse en un programa de élite a través del cual los empleadores compiten por traer solo a los mejores trabajadores extranjeros con los salarios más altos para no reducir las oportunidades estadounidenses” (página 145). 

“Reforma H-1B. Transformar el programa en un mecanismo de élite exclusivamente para atraer a los ‘mejores y más brillantes’ con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantizar que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en desventaja por el programa” (página 150). 

Lo que dice: El gobierno debería utilizar el programa H-1B para priorizar aún más a los inmigrantes altamente calificados. Las personas que ya no tienen méritos y disponibilidad distinguidos deprimen las oportunidades estadounidenses y no se les debe permitir emigrar.  

Impacto: El programa H1-B permite que empresas estadounidenses contraten temporalmente a trabajadores de otros países para trabajar en “ocupaciones especializadas.” Para poder satisfacer los criterios de una ocupación especial, uno debe tener conocimiento especializado o experiencia en un campo particular y al menos una licenciatura o un equivalente (Departamento de Trabajo de EE. UU.). El programa H1-B se normalmente se utiliza para contratar profesionales en sectores de ingeniería, matemáticas, tecnología y ciencias médicas (American Immigration Council). El Proyecto 2025 pide que el programa H1-B se transforme en un “mecanismo de élite” que contrate a trabajadores inmigrantes altamente calificados con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantice que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en ninguna desventaja por el programa. Esto hecho puede llegar a ser engañoso, ya que hay estudios que muestran que los trabajadores H1-B no ganan menos que los trabajadores nacidos en los EE. UU. ni tampoco reducen sus salarios (American Immigration Council). Además, hay un límite anual a la cantidad de visas H1-B que se entregan. Con restricciones nuevas a las visas de trabajadores se podría reducir la cantidad y diversidad de talento, limitando las oportunidades para trabajadores calificados con potencial que aún no han demostrado niveles de éxito de élite. Además, una proporción grande de la economía de EE.UU. está compuesta por trabajadores que no se clasificarían como “altamente calificados,” tales como trabajadores agrícolas y en la construcción, pero que, sin embargo, son esenciales para el éxito de estas industrias. Centrarse solo en los inmigrantes “altamente calificados” puede tener consecuencias perjudiciales para las industrias que dependen de una amplia gama de trabajadores: incluidos los puestos de nivel medio y de nivel inicial, y provocar escasez de mano de obra, salarios más altos o precios más altos para los consumidores. 

Reducir las Visas de Estudiante 

“Priorizar la seguridad nacional en el Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP). ICE debería poner fin a su actual deferencia acogedora hacia las instituciones educativas y eliminar los riesgos de seguridad en el programa. Esto requiere trabajar con el Departamento de Estado para eliminar o reducir significativamente el número de visas emitidas a estudiantes extranjeros de naciones enemigas” (página 141). 

Lo que dice: Debería haber restricciones más estrictas en las instituciones educativas que otorgan visados, incluida la disminución del número de visas de estudiante disponibles. 

Impacto: El Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP)  es un programa administrado por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) que proporciona visas para no inmigrantes para estudiantes y visitantes de intercambio de otros países que buscan una educación en los EE. UU. El Proyecto 2025 implica que el programa SEVP es muy laxo en la admisión de estudiantes extranjeros y que el proceso debe ser más estricto para reducir los riesgos de seguridad. Esta afirmación descarta el hecho de que el DHS utiliza un sistema seguro, llamado Sistema de Información de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVIS), que recopila información sobre estudiantes y visitantes elegibles para el programa SEVP para garantizar que se mantiene seguridad nacional. Además, el Proyecto 2025 propone disminuir significativamente el número de visas otorgadas a “naciones enemigas.” Esto podría alimentar tensiones geopolíticas con otros países y crear divisiones sociales y tensiones en los EE. UU., como el aumento de la xenofobia (aversión o prejuicio contra las personas de otros países), ya que solo los que provengan de países occidentales serían aceptados para estudiar en los EE. UU. Esto también podría crear una barrera innecesaria para la entrada a los EE. UU. de posibles estudiantes altamente calificados que pueden contribuir a la economía de los EE. UU.  

Restricciones Estrictas de Asilo y Reducción de Refugiados Aceptados 

“El estándar para un temor creíble de persecución debe elevarse y alinearse con el estándar para el asilo. También debe tener en cuenta específicamente las determinaciones de credibilidad que son un elemento clave de la solicitud de asilo” (página 148). 

“El Congreso debería eliminar el motivo protegido por grupo social particular por ser vago y demasiado amplio o, en su defecto, proporcionar una definición clara con parámetros que, como mínimo, codifiquen la decisión en materia de A-B de que la violencia de pandillas y la violencia doméstica no son motivos para el asilo” (página 148). 

Lo que dice: Estas dos declaraciones del Proyecto 2025 recomiendan restricciones más estrictas sobre quién es elegible para el estatus de asilo, incluido el aumento de los estándares para casos de temor creíble de ser víctimas a la persecución. El Proyecto 2025 agrega que ser parte de un grupo social específico o ser víctima de violencia de bandas o violencia doméstica no debería calificar a alguien para el asilo. 

Impacto: Esta recomendación del Proyecto 2025 permitiría al gobierno rechazar y potencialmente poner en peligro la vida de los solicitantes de asilo que no cumplan con los estándares extremadamente altos para demostrar un temor creíble a la persecución (Human Rights First). Las Naciones Unidas publicaron un informe en 2021 en el que expresaban que implementar regulaciones extremas para los solicitantes de asilo es una violación de los derechos humanos (ONU). Los solicitantes de asilo que se enfrentaban a un temor creíble a la persecución bajo a los anteriores requisitos ahora necesitarían evidencia de estándares altos, que puede no estar disponible dependiendo de las circunstancias de la persona. Con restricciones a lo que significa ser un solicitante de asilo, las personas que puedan haber declarado un temor creíble de persecución pueden tener más problemas con las solicitudes de asilo, lo que lleva a largos procesos administrativos y violaciones de los derechos humanos. También dificultaría que una administración pueda otorgar asilo temporal a algunas categorías específicas de migrantes, en respuesta a desastres naturales, desplazamientos forzados y otras amenazas a gran escala para la vida y los medios de subsistencia.  

No más Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) 

“Actualmente, aproximadamente entre 15 y el 20 por ciento de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB consiste en ayudar a los solicitantes de DACA a obtener y renovar sus beneficios, incluyendo la autorización de trabajo. Esta no es la función del Ombudsman. Además, el gobierno debería ser un árbitro neutral, no un defensor de los extranjeros ilegales” (página 166). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 afirma que la carga de trabajo de la Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB) está abrumada por ayudar a los solicitantes de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) a obtener y renovar beneficios. Además, este documento implica que el gobierno está actuando como defensor de los inmigrantes indocumentados al asistir a los solicitantes de DACA. 

Impacto: La Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) permite a las personas que fueron traídas a los EE. UU por sus padres antes de los 16 años, ser elegibles para trabajar, estudiar y servir en el ejército. Los beneficiarios de DACA tienen que renovar sus beneficios cada dos años para mantener la protección temporal contra la deportación. La mayoría de los beneficiarios de DACA han crecido como estadounidenses, han recibido educación estadounidense y son miembros de la comunidad. Muchos de ellos se enteran de que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses una vez que son adultos y atraviesan procesos como solicitudes de empleo y de universidad. 

La Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB),sirve como enlace entre el público y los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS), para ayudar a los inmigrantes a abordar problemas e inquietudes con su experiencia con USCIS. CISCOMB es una oficina independiente en el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) separada de USCIS que procesa las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. La afirmación hecha por el Proyecto 2025 con respecto a que CISOMB está agobiada con renovaciones de solicitudes de DACA es engañosa, ya que CISOMB no tiene ninguna autoridad para aprobar o denegar las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. No hay evidencia que informe el porcentaje de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB como se afirma en el Proyecto 2025. Además, esta sección del Proyecto 2025 enfatiza que el gobierno no debería proporcionar ningún servicio a los beneficiarios de DACA, porque promueve empatía hacia los inmigrantes indocumentados. Estos sentimientos dirigidos a ayudar a individuos que se vieron obligados a migrar de niños permiten más flexibilidad para seguir privando a inmigrantes indocumentados inocentes del derecho a la educación. 

Restringir los recursos educativos para los estudiantes de DACA 

“Departamento de Educación: Negar el acceso a préstamos a aquellos que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses o residentes permanentes legales, y negar el acceso a préstamos a estudiantes en escuelas que dan matrícula estatal a extranjeros ilegales” (página 167). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 pide que el Departamento de Educación niegue préstamos estudiantiles a cualquier persona que no sea ciudadana estadounidense o residente permanente. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impacta a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar al Departamento de Educación que niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes en las escuelas que permiten la matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA. 

Impacto: Actualmente, los inmigrantes indocumentados tales como los estudiantes de DACA, no son elegibles para recibir ayuda financiera federal, excepto para los refugiados y algunos titulares de visas (FAFSA). Sin embargo, veinticinco estados de EE.UU. permiten que los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA, paguen matrícula estatal (fuente). Esto permitiría a los beneficiarios de DACA recibir una educación superior más accesible en sus estados de residencia, a pesar de no ser elegibles para préstamos federales. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impactaría a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar que el Departamento de Educación niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes que estudien en universidades que permitan pagar matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA. Esto puede entenderse como un esfuerzo para penalizar a las escuelas que permiten que los estudiantes de DACA paguen la matrícula estatal y, por lo tanto, limitar el acceso de los estudiantes de DACA a una educación universitaria. 

Mandato E-Verify 

“El Congreso también debería autorizar permanentemente E-Verify y hacerlo obligatorio” (página 149). 

Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 hace un llamado al Congreso para expandir E-Verify, manteniendo una autorización permanente y mandato del sistema. 

Impacto: E-Verify es un sistema utilizado voluntariamente por los empleadores, con algunos mandatos estatales y locales, que verifica la elegibilidad de los empleados para trabajar en los EE. UU. (USCIS). Sin embargo, E-Verify no es tan confiable como el Proyecto 2025 sugiere. E-Verify se basa en registros del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) y de la Administración del Seguro Social (SSA), que no siempre están actualizados, lo que resulta en errores o lo que E-Verify llama “discrepancias“. Los errores en el sistema podrían resultar en identificaciones erróneas de personas, incluidos ciudadanos estadounidenses, como incapaces de trabajar en los EE. UU., lo que podría provocar una pérdida del empleo o retrasos en el trabajo hasta que se corrija el error. 

Más Transparencia con Respecto a la Información Tributaria de Inmigrantes Indocumentados

“Departamento del Tesoro: Implementar todas las regulaciones necesarias tanto para igualar los impuestos entre los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los titulares de visas de trabajo como para proporcionar al DHS toda la información fiscal de los extranjeros ilegales lo más rápidamente posible” (página 167). 

Lo que dice: El Departamento del Tesoro debe hacer que los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los inmigrantes con visas de trabajo paguen la misma cantidad de impuestos. Además, el Departamento del Tesoro debe proporcionar al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional toda la información fiscal de todos los inmigrantes indocumentados lo antes posible. 

Impacto: Por lo general, las personas con visas de trabajo pagan la misma cantidad de impuestos sobre la renta que los ciudadanos estadounidenses, con algunas exenciones, como el pago de Seguro Social y Medicare (IRS). Este plan requiere que aquellos con visas de trabajo paguen impuestos por el Seguro Social y Medicare, lo que sería injusto ya que ellos solo viven en los EE. UU. temporalmente y no recibirán dichos beneficios. 

Además, el Departamento del Tesoro retiene toda la información fiscal recopilada en los EE. UU., incluida la información fiscal de los inmigrantes indocumentados que pagan impuestos. Si DHS tiene toda la información de identificación, los agentes fronterizos pueden usar esta información confidencial para determinar quién es indocumentado y quién está documentado. Pueden usar esta información para ejecutar planes para llevar a cabo deportaciones masivas de inmigrantes indocumentados, incluso de aquellos que pagan impuestos. Sin embargo, en 2022, los inmigrantes indocumentados pagaron $96.7 mil millones en impuestos federales, estatales y locales (ITEP). Los inmigrantes indocumentados contribuyen significativamente a sus comunidades y al país en general. El presupuesto federal, que durante algún tiempo ha luchado con un déficit creciente (PGPF), no se beneficiaría de deportar a todos los inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan y pagan impuestos en los EE.UU. Incluso amenazar con entregar toda la información fiscal al DHS desalentaría a los inmigrantes indocumentados de pagar impuestos. Esto también afectaría las finanzas del sistema de Seguro Social, que a menudo disfruta de un superávit para los inmigrantes indocumentados que contribuyen con pagos pero no reciben beneficios después de la jubilación. 

Falta de Controles y Equilibrios en la Frontera 

“El presidente busca una legislación para desmantelar el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS)” (página 133).

“La Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de los Estados Unidos (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) se combinará con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE); Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS); la Oficina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados (ORR) del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS); y la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Inmigración (EOIR) y la Oficina de Litigios de Inmigración (OIL) del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) en una agencia fronteriza y de inmigración independiente a nivel de Gabinete (más de 100,000 empleados, lo que lo convierte en el tercer departamento más grande medido por mano de obra)” (página 133). 

Lo que dice: Las agencias de inmigración se consolidarán en una agencia centralizada que controlará toda la implementación y acción de la política de inmigración. 

Impacto: El posible desmantelamiento del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) y la consolidación de las preocupaciones relacionadas con la inmigración bajo una sola agencia plantea preocupaciones sobre la disminución de la rendición de cuentas, la transparencia y las protecciones de los derechos civiles de los migrantes. Junto con una mayor militarización del régimen de inmigración de Estados Unidos, podría ser más fácil esconder los abusos de los derechos humanos debajo de la alfombra, lo que llevaría a una mayor represión de los migrantes.  

Conclusiones Clave 

Contrariamente a la creencia común, la inmigración es esencial para la economía de los Estados Unidos. Los inmigrantes fueron responsables del 50 por ciento del crecimiento del mercado laboral en 2022. Una disminución en la inmigración a los EE. UU. afectará notablemente a industrias importantes donde la mano de obra indocumentada suele ser esencial, como la agricultura, la construcción y el sector de servicios, lo que podría provocar escasez de mano de obra y mayores costos para los consumidores. Las deportaciones masivas de trabajadores esenciales disminuirían la fuerza laboral, lo que podría provocar inflación, escasez de alimentos y otros productos, y precios más altos de las necesidades básicas (Forbes). Si el Proyecto 2025 se ejecutara y aplicara durante un segundo mandato de Trump, las políticas de inmigración más estrictas podrían contribuir a una recesión económica (AULA).  

Las recomendaciones de política de inmigración propuestas en el Proyecto 2025 tienen como objetivo crear un cambio significativo en la aplicación de la ley fronteriza que promueva un sistema de aplicación estricta sin ofrecer caminos a la legalización para aquellos que ingresaron al país indocumentados, con el único plan de deportación y detención masivas. Si una segunda administración de Trump adoptara las recomendaciones de política promovidas aquí, aumentaría las vulnerabilidades que enfrentan los inmigrantes, tanto documentados como indocumentados. En lugar de fomentar un sistema de inmigración humano y eficaz, el Proyecto 2025 se inclina hacia medidas punitivas que priorizan la aplicación de la ley sobre la compasión. Para concluir, el Proyecto 2025 transformaría fundamentalmente la estructura del gobierno federal de maneras profundamente perjudiciales para los migrantes de todo tipo, pero también para el florecimiento de la sociedad estadounidense en su conjunto.  

Katheryn Olmos es Asistente de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está en el programa de maestría en Sociología, Investigación y Práctica en American University.

Luc Thomas es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está completando su Licenciatura en Ciencias Políticas en American University.

Inés Hidalgo Wieckowicz es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Es estudiante en la Escuela de Servicio Internacional en American University.

Ernesto Castañeda es Director del Laboratorio de Inmigración y del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos en American University.

Robert Albro es Director Asociado de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos.

Editado por Diana Garay, Coordinador del Programa, y Mackenzie Hoekstra, pasante, ambos en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración.

Project 2025

Project 2025 and Immigration

By Katheryn Olmos, Luc Thomas, Ernesto Castañeda, & Robert Albro*

October 30, 2024

PHOTO BY EUROMAIDAN PRESS | EUROMAIDANPRESS.COM

Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is a government policy agenda developed by the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, intended for implementation within the first 180 days of Donald Trump’s potential second presidential term, should he win the 2024 election. This manifesto is 922 pages long and divided into five sections, the first of which is titled “Taking the Reins of the Government.” If enacted, this plan has the potential to fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government and reshape the country as a whole. 

Trump’s Ties 

On July 5th, former President Trump stated on his Facebook account, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” (Trump). He reiterated this sentiment during the presidential debate on September 10, asserting that he has “nothing to do with Project 2025” (NBC). 

However, behind the scenes, the situation appears quite different. In a leaked recording by the Centre for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s administration, a member of the RNC’s platform committee, and a co-author of Project 2025, revealed that Trump has “blessed” the Heritage Foundation and that “[Trump] is very supportive of what we do.” Vought also indicated that he is “not worried” about Trump publicly distancing himself from the initiative and indicates that this should not be taken seriously. “[Trump’s] been at our organization. He’s raised money for our organization”.  

Furthermore, several high-ranking officials from Trump’s administration have been instrumental in shaping Project 2025. Among these contributors are former White House adviser Peter Navarro, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Paul Dans – now the Project 2025 Director – and Spencer Chretien, a former Special Assistant, who currently serves as the Project 2025 Associate Director.  

What are its implications for U.S. immigration policy? 

Project 2025 has major implications for immigration policy, including: 

Completion of Trump’s Wall

“Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure. The monies appropriated would be used to fund the construction of additional border wall systems, technology, and personnel in strategic locations in accordance with the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP).” (Page 147) 

What it says: Project 2025 proposes increased funding for expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, increasing border surveillance, and hiring more border patrol. 

Impact: The completion of the border wall may only push determined migrants to go after more dangerous border-crossing methods, leading to increased abuse and violence towards immigrants. Trump’s wall expansions currently stand 30 feet tall and have already resulted in a rise in deaths and serious injuries from migrants falling from the wall (NIH). In El Paso alone, within seven months of the increase in the height of the wall, Border Patrol and healthcare workers have responded to 229 injuries from border wall falls, including broken legs and brain or spinal injuries (NBC). With the construction of the additional wall segments, determined undocumented immigrants coming across the border will face these risks. More wall segments could push even more people to the Sonoran Desert, increasing migrant mortality (UCLA). Expanding Trump’s wall deepens tensions between the U.S., Mexico, and other Latin American countries, as the wall is perceived as a symbol of division rather than cooperation. Instead of deadly borders, humane and effective immigration policies could better protect human rights and foster positive international relations. 

Increased Militarization of the Border  

“Department of Defense: Assist in aggressively building the border wall system on America’s southern border. Additionally, explicitly acknowledge and adjust personnel and priorities to participate actively in the defense of America’s borders, including using military personnel and hardware to prevent illegal crossings between ports of entry and channel all cross-border traffic to legal ports of entry.” (Page 166-167) 

What it says: Project 2025 calls for increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border that will likely be used to enforce immigration protocol. 

Impact: There will be an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, with more direct authorization for the use of military force, potentially leading to more violent encounters with immigrants regardless of the circumstance. This places migrants at a higher risk for extreme and violent encounters with border patrol. Additionally, there is uncertainty about how detention centers may change in response to these measures. The militarization of the border could result in the further militarization of detention centers, which increases the likelihood of hostile and abusive situations for migrants in detention centers. 

Expedited Removal of Immigrants & Mass Deportations 

“To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement.” (Page 142) 

“ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate.” (Page 142) 

What it says: The current ICE policy of Expedited Removal (ER) within 100 miles of the border would be expanded under Project 2025 to allow ICE to apprehend suspected undocumented migrants without a warrant anywhere in the country. 

Impact: The ER process is already controversial, as it allows immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a warrant or a hearing. Additionally, “unlike other removal orders, an expedited removal order cannot normally be appealed and carries a five-year bar to reentry in most circumstances” (American Immigration Council). The ER process is unconstitutional since it violates the right to due process (HoustonLawReview). ICE officers would be able to decide the fate of asylum seekers and other immigrants with special circumstances, instead of an immigration judge, who should be making the decision. As ICE and immigration enforcement grow more powerful, there are growing fears about the impact on already marginalized communities, where this unchecked authority could result in widespread harm and inequality. 

Bring Back Title 42 

“Title 42 authority in Title 8. Create an authority akin to Title 42. Public Health authority that has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel illegal aliens across the border immediately when certain nonhealth conditions are met, such as loss of operational control of the border.” (Page 147) 

What it says: Title 42 was a policy enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic that restricted immigration to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases, specifically COVID-19. Project 2025 calls for the same process as Title 42, but not for exceptional circumstances of public health emergencies. Rather it would be applied to any circumstance where immediate removal of immigrants is deemed necessary. 

Impact: While Title 42 was in effect, the government called for the immediate removal of immigrants and asylum seekers arriving at the border without a hearing, which violated the constitutional right to due process. The policy specifically mentions its application in cases of “loss of operational control of the border,” which could be interpreted broadly and used whenever authorities feel it is necessary, regardless of facts on the ground. The vagueness around the circumstances of enforcing such a policy could lead to the end of asylum at the border. 

Removal of “Sensitive Zones” 

“All ICE memoranda identifying “sensitive zones” where ICE personnel are prohibited from operating should be rescinded. Rely on the good judgment of officers in the field to avoid inappropriate situations.” (Page 142) 

What it says: Project 2025 clearly states that they want to get rid of “sensitive zones” and ICE-free zones.  

Impact: The protected areas exist to ensure access to essential services for community members, such as (but not limited to) schools, medical facilities, places of worship, or religious study (CBP). ICE is not allowed to enter these areas without proper permission, or to carry out typical enforcement actions such as arrests, civil apprehensions, searches, inspections, seizures, service of charging documents or subpoenas, interviews, and immigration enforcement surveillance. The removal of “sensitive zones” will allow raids in such places that immigrants consider safe havens from fear of deportation.  

Increased Space in Detention Centers 

“Congress should mandate and fund additional bed space for alien detainees. ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000.” (Page 143) 

What it says: Project 2025 aims to more than double the number of migrants held in detention centers (up to 100,000). At this time, the daily bed space quota for immigrants in detention who are facing deportation is 41,500 (Congress). 

Impact: By increasing detention capacity, Project 2025 seeks to further expand and institutionalize the detention of undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers. With increased capacity, enforcement practices may use “national security” as a justification to increasingly racially profile and detain innocent migrants to fill the detention centers. Furthermore, as the number of migrants in detention centers increases, so does the risk of overcrowding, inadequate health services, and limited access to legal advisors. This can also result in a longer detainment process, where people are incarcerated in these detention centers without any clear end. These detention centers, many of which were previously private prisons (ACLU), isolate undocumented immigrants and hold them in inhumane conditions. This section of policy reflects that Project 2025 plans to oversee a significant increase in the number of people detained in inhumane detention centers and then potentially deported. 

Remove Protections for Unaccompanied Minors 

“Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed.” (Page 148) 

What it says: Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) currently provides protection and assistance to unaccompanied minors, children who cross the border without a parent or guardian, who are at risk of human trafficking, and vulnerable to exploitation. Its repeal would remove these important safeguards for unaccompanied minors. 

Impact: Without these protections children detained at the border will no longer benefit from a policy of safe return to their home country. Furthermore, these children and youth would lose access to safe housing placements, healthcare services, legal attorneys and advocates, immigration status adjustments, asylum protections, and other types of social assistance that protects them from exploitation, including human trafficking. Furthermore, removing legal protections for unaccompanied minors would make it more difficult for authorities to investigate crimes or prosecute human trafficking schemes. The government should instead focus on creating a system that efficiently processes children, protects human rights, and minimizes further trauma so that unaccompanied children are kept out of further danger.

Removal of Visas for Survivors of Human Trafficking and Other Crimes 

“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud.” (Page 141) 

“Emphasis also has been placed on removing legal barriers to immigration, such as the use of public benefits.” (Page 143) 

What it says: Project 2025 proposes to remove current visas given to victims of human trafficking (T visa) and other serious crimes (U visa) who assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting those committing such crimes. This document argues that victimization is not a legitimate way to qualify for immigration benefits, instead maintaining that these types of visas are an easy route to fraud. 

Impact: The T and U visas exist so that undocumented victims of crimes in the U.S. will not be afraid to report crimes due to fear of persecution and deportation. Eliminating these visas would increase the likelihood of reprisals against already vulnerable undocumented people, perpetuating a cycle of violence.  Project 2025 proposes using the currently available S visa in place of the T and U visas. The S visa is a temporary visa that allows immigrants who have witnessed a crime to reside in the U.S. while assisting in criminal or terrorist investigations. While the S visa sounds similar to the T and U visas, this visa disregards the circumstances of the victimization of migrants and does not acknowledge the protection of human rights. The T and U visas additionally aim to assist victims who have had crimes committed against them in rebuilding their lives by providing access to healthcare, legal aid, or any other care in light of their situation, while the S visa does not. Additionally, T and U visas encourage cooperation and trust with law enforcement, while S visas are much more restrictive and potentially increase the vulnerability of victims since perpetrators of crimes know that their victims cannot prosecute their perpetrators through “normal” legal routes.  

Prioritize “High-Skilled” Immigrants 

“The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities.” (Page 145) 

“H-1B reform. Transform the program into an elite mechanism exclusively to bring in the “best and brightest” at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program.” (Page 150) 

What it says: The government should use the H-1B program to further prioritize high-skilled immigrants. People who already don’t have distinguished merit and availability depress American opportunities and should not be allowed to immigrate.  

Impact: The H1-B program allows American companies to temporarily hire workers from other countries for “specialty occupations.” In order to meet the criteria for a specialty occupation, one must have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular field and at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (U.S. Department of Labor). The H1-B program is most commonly used for hiring professionals in engineering, mathematics, technology, and medical sciences (American Immigration Council). Project 2025 argues that the H1-B program be transformed into an “elite mechanism” that hires high-skilled immigrant workers at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program. This is misleading, as research shows that H1-B workers do not earn more than U.S.-born workers nor does it lower American wages (American Immigration Council). Additionally, there is an annual cap on how many H1-B visas are granted. Further restrictions on worker visas may actually reduce the overall talent pool and diversity, limiting opportunities for skilled workers who may not yet have demonstrated elite levels of success but possess high potential. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the US economy is powered by workers who might not be categorized as “high skilled,” such as agricultural and construction workers, but who are nevertheless essential to the success of these industries. Focusing on only “high-skilled” immigrants can lead to harmful consequences for industries that rely on a broad range of workers, including mid-skill and entry-level positions, and lead to labor shortages, higher wages, or higher costs for consumers. 

Reduce Student Visas 

“Prioritize national security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations.” (Page 141) 

What it says: There should be tighter restrictions on education institutions for allowing student visas, including decreasing the number of available student visas to protect national security. 

What this means: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is a program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that provides temporary visas for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors from other countries seeking an education in the U.S. Project 2025 implies that the SEVP program provides too much leniency in admitting foreign students and that the process should be tightened to reduce security risks. This claim dismisses the fact that the DHS uses a secure system, called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which collects information about students and visitors eligible for the SEVP program to ensure national security. Additionally, Project 2025 proposes to significantly decrease the number of visas given to “enemy nations.” This could fuel geopolitical tensions with other countries, and create social divisions and tensions in the U.S., such as increasing xenophobia (dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries), as only those coming from Western countries would be accepted to study in the U.S. This could also create a needless barrier to the entrance into the U.S. of potential high-skilled students that are in a position to contribute to the U.S. economy.  

Strict Asylum Restrictions & Reduction of Accepted Refugees 

“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim.” (Page 148) 

“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.” (Page 148) 

What it says: These two statements from Project 2025 recommend stricter restrictions on who is eligible for asylum status, including raising the standards for cases of credible fear of persecution. Project 2025 adds that being part of a specific social group or a victim of gang violence or domestic violence should not qualify for asylum. 

Impact: This recommendation from Project 2025 would allow the government to turn away and potentially endanger the lives of asylum seekers who do not meet the extremely high standards of proving a credible fear of persecution (Human Rights First). The United Nations released a report in 2021 expressing that extreme regulations on asylum seekers are a violation of human rights (UN). Asylum seekers who met a credible fear of persecution under previous qualifications would then require high standards of evidence, which may not be easily available depending on the individual’s circumstances. With the restriction of what it means to be an asylum seeker, people who may have claimed credible fear of persecution may have more trouble with asylum claims leading to long administrative processes and violations of human rights. It would also seem to make it harder for a given administration to grant temporary asylum to specific categories of migrants, in response to natural disasters, forced displacements, and other large-scale threats to life and livelihood.  

No More Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 

“Currently, approximately 15 percent–20 percent of CISOMB’s workload consists of helping DACA applicants obtain and renew benefits, including work authorization. This is not the role of an ombudsman. In addition, the government should be a neutral adjudicator, not an advocate for illegal aliens.” (Page 166) 

What it says: Project 2025 claims that the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) workload is overwhelmed from assisting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applicants obtain and renew benefits. Additionally, this document implies that the government is acting as an advocate for undocumented immigrants by assisting DACA applicants. 

Impact: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allows individuals who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before the age of 16, to be eligible to work, study, and serve in the army. DACA recipients must renew their benefits every two years to maintain temporary relief from deportation. The majority of DACA recipients have grown up as Americans, received American education, and are members of the community. Many of them only find out that they are not American citizens once they are adults and go through processes such as employment and university applications. 

The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) serves as a liaison between the public and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to help immigrants address issues and concerns with their experience with USCIS. CISCOMB is an independent office in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) separate from USCIS which processes DACA renewal applications. The claim made by Project 2025 regarding CISOMB being overwhelmed by DACA application renewals is misleading, since the CISOMB does not have any authority to approve or deny DACA renewal applications. There is no evidence to inform the percentage of CISOMB’s workload as stated in Project 2025. Furthermore, this section from Project 2025 emphasizes that the government should not be providing any services for DACA recipients because it promotes empathy for undocumented immigrants. These sentiments directed towards helping individuals who were forced to migrate as children allow for more leeway in further depriving innocent undocumented immigrants of the right to education. 

Restrict Educational Resources for DACA Students

“Department of Education: Deny loan access to those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.” (Page 167) 

What it says: Project 2025 calls for the Department of Education to deny student loans to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students. 

Impact: Currently, undocumented immigrants, such as DACA students, are not eligible for federal financial aid, except for refugees and some visa-holders (FAFSA). However, twenty-five U.S. states do allow undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students, to pay in-state tuition (source). This would allow DACA recipients to receive a more accessible higher education in their states of residency, despite not being eligible for federal loans. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students. This can be understood as an effort to penalize schools that allow DACA students to pay in-state tuition and, ultimately, to limit DACA students from accessing a college education. 

Mandate E-Verify 

“Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory.” (Page 149) 

What it says: Project 2025 calls upon Congress to expand E-Verify, by enforcing permanent authorization and mandate of the system. 

Impact: E-Verify is a system voluntarily used by employers, with some state and local mandates, that verifies employees’ eligibility to work in the U.S. (USCIS). However, E-Verify is not as reliable as Project 2025 appears to suggest. E-Verify relies on records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), which are not always up to date, resulting in errors, or what E-Verify calls “mismatches.” Mistakes in the system could result in wrongfully identifying people, even American citizens, as unable to work in the U.S., which could lead to job loss or job delays until the error is corrected.   

Greater Transparency Regarding Tax Information from Undocumented Immigrants 

Department of the Treasury: Implement all necessary regulations both to equalize taxes between American citizens and working visa holders and to provide DHS with all tax information of illegal aliens as expeditiously as possible.” (Page 167) 

What it says: The Department of Treasury must make American citizens and immigrants with work visas pay the same amount of taxes. Additionally, the Department of Treasury must provide the Department of Homeland Security with all tax information of all undocumented immigrants as soon as possible. 

Impact: Generally, people with work visas pay the same amount of income taxes as U.S. citizens, with some exemptions, such as paying Social Security and Medicare (IRS). This plan requires those with work visas to pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which is unfair since they are only living in the U.S. temporarily and will not receive such benefits. 

Furthermore, the Department of Treasury withholds all tax information collected in the U.S., including tax information from tax-paying undocumented immigrants. If the DHS has all the identifying information, border enforcement agents may use this sensitive information to determine who is undocumented and documented. They may use this information to execute plans to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, even those who pay taxes. Additionally, in 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes (ITEP). Undocumented immigrants significantly contribute to their communities and the country as a whole. The federal budget, which has for some time struggled with a growing deficit (PGPF), would not benefit from deporting all undocumented immigrants who work and pay taxes in the U.S. Even threatening to hand all tax information to the DHS would discourage undocumented immigrants from paying taxes. This would also impact the Social Security system finances, which often enjoys a surplus for undocumented immigrants who contribute with payments but do not receive benefits after retirement. 

Lack of Checks and Balances at the Border 

“The President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” (page 133). 

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) into a standalone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level (more than 100,000 employees, making it the third largest department measured by manpower)” (133) 

What it says: Immigration agencies will be consolidated into one centralized agency that will control all immigration policy implementation and action. 

Impact: The potential dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security and consolidation of immigration-related concerns under one agency raises concerns about decreases in accountability, transparency, and civil rights protections for migrants. Together with the further militarization of the U.S. immigration regime, it could become easier to sweep human rights abuses under the rug, leading to greater repression of migrants.  

Key Takeaways 

Contrary to common belief, immigration is essential to the U.S. economy. According to the Washington Post immigrants were responsible for 50% of the labor market’s growth in 2022. A decline in immigration to the U.S. will notably impact important industries where undocumented labor is frequently essential, like agriculture, construction, and the service sector, potentially leading to labor shortages and higher costs for consumers. Mass deportations of essential workers would decrease the labor force, which could lead to inflation, shortages of food and other products, and higher prices for basic necessities (Forbes). If Project 2025 were to be executed and enforced during a second Trump term, stricter immigration policies could contribute to an economic recession (AULA).  

The proposed immigration policy recommendations in Project 2025 aim to create a significant shift in border enforcement that promotes a system of strict enforcement without offering paths to legalization for those who entered the country undocumented, with the only plan being mass deportation and detention. Were a second Trump administration to adopt the policy recommendations promoted here, it would heighten the vulnerabilities faced by immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Instead of fostering a humane and effective immigration system, Project 2025 leans toward punitive measures that could jeopardize nationwide benefits. To conclude, Project 2025 would fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government in ways both deeply detrimental to migrants of all sorts but also to the flourishing of U.S. society as a whole. 

Katheryn Olmos is a Research Assistant at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. She is in the master’s program in Sociology, Research, and Practice at American University.

Luc Thomas is an intern at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. He is completing his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at American University.

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

Robert Albro is Associate Director for Research at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.

Edited by Diana Garay, Program Coordinator, and Mackenzie Hoekstra, intern, both at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab.

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 Sciences119(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/.

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.

 

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/

Mass Deportations Could Create a US Recession

By Ernesto Castañeda

Interview by Diana Castrillon with Ernesto Castañeda published in Stornia August 13, 2024. Edited and expanded by Castañeda. Original in Spanish. Translated by Castañeda.

Diana Castrillon: “Irregular immigration is one of the most important issues in the presidential campaigns of the candidates, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris. On the one hand, the Biden administration, of which Vice President Harris is part, restricted the number of asylum seekers entering the country, and on the other hand, Republicans are promising the “largest mass deportation program in US history” if they win the White House this fall.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States is on the rise, with more than half (55%) of Americans this year saying they would like to see a decrease in immigration, a first since 2001. This is partly due to the belief that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, are a burden on government resources and contribute nothing to the economy.

However, a new study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that the opposite is true. According to the report, undocumented immigrants contributed nearly $100 billion in taxes during 2022, while being unable to access many of the programs their tax dollars funded. Of that nearly $100 billion, $60 billion went to the federal government. For every million undocumented immigrants, federal services receive an additional $8.9 billion in tax revenue. More than a third of the taxes paid by these immigrants go to programs they cannot access, such as Social Security ($25.7 billion), Medicare ($6.4 billion), and unemployment insurance ($1.8 billion).

In addition, undocumented immigrants often pay higher tax rates than American citizens: in 40 of the 50 U.S. states, illegal immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the 1% of households with the highest incomes. In addition, they cannot receive many tax credits and often do not realize that they can claim refunds or prefer not to. “In total, the federal tax contribution of undocumented immigrants amounted to $59.4 billion in 2022, while the state and local tax contribution stood at $37.3 billion,” the authors of the study wrote. “These figures make it clear that decisions on immigration policy have substantial implications for public revenues at all levels of government,” the report says.

In an interview with Stornia, Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University in Washington DC, said that immigrants are necessary and essential for the economic growth of the United States.

Diana Castrillon: How does an undocumented immigrant pay taxes, if as their name suggests, they are irregular migrants?

Ernesto Castañeda: Undocumented immigrants pay taxes every time they buy something; there is a sales tax, and the percentage depends on each locality. If they buy houses, they also pay taxes, or if they rent, there is a percentage that must be paid in taxes to the local and federal governments. Undocumented people who work in formal companies, which are many, can have a temporary identification to pay taxes (ITIN), which works in a similar way to a Social Security number, so they pay payroll taxes like any other person working in the United States. There are some undocumented people who use false or incorrect identification documents, but someone lends them one, and so they pay into the Social Security and retirement and health programs. However, since the number is false or does not belong to them, they do not have access to those benefits when they retire. So, not only do they pay for these services, but many immigrants do not ask for these benefits. Therefore, they have a net or even greater contribution than the citizens who pay, but then they withdraw those benefits such as social security after retirement. It is a gain that the federal government and the Treasury openly accept that happens.

So, are undocumented immigrants paying more taxes than American citizens themselves?

Yes—the rate of many undocumented people who pay taxes is higher than the rates paid by the richest people in the country. Of course, their incomes are different, but the rate is sometimes higher or very similar to that of citizens. Citizens fill out their tax returns and often ask for tax returns and reimbursements, for example, they get a credit for having children, but many undocumented taxpayers do not make these claims because they do not want to be denied citizenship in the future for having asked for aid. Nor do they ask for support programs for their children, who are already citizens and have the right to those services, out of fear. We have documented that, indeed, immigrants use fewer social services than U.S.-born citizens (Castañeda and Cione, 2024).

It seems that undocumented immigrants are between a rock and a hard place now with the electoral campaign on both the Republican and Democratic sides. Is there concern in the community?

Some politicians use undocumented immigrants as scapegoats. On the one hand, Trump makes this threat of mass deportations, but it is unlikely that he will do it. He had promised that before, and when he was president, he did not deport as many people. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t scared now, and if he wins, he’s going to create real terror among the people who already live in fear of themselves or their family members being found. That’s a reality that undocumented immigrants have been living with for many years.

As for asylum, in fact, many people are fleeing Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Haiti, many with proof of persecution, and now the government has changed how it processes these asylum cases. The border is closed to many of these asylum requests as it was during the pandemic, so we’re seeing fewer people let in through the wall in between ports of entry. The Biden-Harris administration thinks that this can help them electorally so that Republicans don’t criticize them about the border supposedly being open or about undocumented individuals or those seeking asylum temporarily receiving food and housing in some cities. At some point, they will have to reopen the border to asylum seekers because national and international law calls to receive people who are asking for asylum. Some will be accepted, others will not after processing their applications.

Trump would need a lot of money and policing. He would have to create a totalitarian state to be able to deport all the people who are here. Many of these people have been here for more than 10 years. Their children are citizens. They work, and they contribute. So, deporting in massive numbers or stopping receiving immigrants and asylum seekers is a great attack on the United States and the economy could contract. Massive deportations from the interior could create a recession because, as we indicated, migrants pay billions in taxes. However, taxes are a small percentage of what people earn, and most of what immigrants earn is spent in the cities where they live. With the work they do, they generate economic growth, services, and entertainment.

A few days ago, JD Vance, Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate, justified the mass deportation plan and said that undocumented immigrants are stealing jobs from American citizens. Is there a line of Americans waiting for immigrants to be deported to take their jobs?

It doesn’t work like that. Trump and Vance are wrong about immigrants taking jobs from citizens or African Americans. It’s an easy stereotype to sell. Some voters may have had an experience where it seemed that could be the case. However, if we look at the economy in general, immigration generates new jobs. In Florida, the strictest anti-immigrant law in the country is in effect. In fact, many undocumented immigrants have left the state, and today, there is not enough labor for construction, services such as hotels, or even to pick oranges. So, the businesses that needed that labor to generate wealth now do not have their business functioning 100%. Middle-sized farm owners have had to close because they lack the labor, and some small businesses have had to limit their service hours. If there is no construction, there is no housing, and there is more inflation for existing housing. Immigrants arrive and need a place to live, someone to cut their hair, and someone to sell them food, so they generate work and income for merchants. Immigrants start more service businesses, as well as large companies, than those born in the United States. We also know that in general, immigrants employ more people than business owners who are from the country.

It is not like there is an economic pie that is shared by the number of people who are here plus those who arrive. Indeed, the more people arrive, the bigger the pie becomes, so there will be more pie for everyone to share. It is not unfair competition, and that is seen in the unemployment rates. Under the Biden-Harris administration, we have a historically low unemployment rate for African Americans and for Latinos. There are very few citizens of European origin who are unemployed because some immigrants are taking their jobs. They usually do not find work because they do not have enough education to take a job or, on the contrary, because they have too much education and there is no high-income job that they can take. Or because they refuse to move to look for work. Unemployment rates are low and what business owners complain about is that they do not have enough staff in organizations to expand their businesses. This also affects citizens looking for services and having to wait longer in restaurants because there are not enough waiters or cooks.

What is the answer to immigration management, more temporary employment visas, legalizing undocumented immigrants, or building more walls on the border?

The solution to long-term cases of irregular immigration is to increase temporary employment visas so that people can migrate legally. There are programs such as the H2A and H2B visas, which are examples of visas that work very well. People come, work, and return to their country because they have already earned income in dollars and want to be with their families. The problem is that there are limits, there are quotas for these visas, they are for certain types of jobs, and there is more demand for these temporary workers than the law allows. Congress has to pass legislation to increase the number of these visas. Thus, the House of Representatives and the Senate, along with enough members from both parties, have to agree. Many Republicans refuse to reform immigration because they want to use it for electoral purposes rather than solve the issue.

For the people who are already here, the solution is to legalize them. By giving papers or work permits to those who are here, many would earn more money, have more confidence to invest, and pay more taxes. This would be an injection into the American economy, and they could bring their relatives legally and expand the worker base a little more. That is something that neither Trump nor Vance understands, and they would never do it. Unlike President Ronald Reagan, who did sign a law like that, although reluctantly. It is not something that Kamala Harris or Tim Walz have wanted to talk about much in the campaign either because people use it as a very simple attack, but they have a political history of supporting these types of measures.

And with this legalization of undocumented immigrants in the United States, do Latin American countries win or lose?

Remittances represent only 4% of the wealth that immigrants generate in the United States, and a migrant who is more established sends remittances less often. Remittances help support families in economic need, but they represent long family separations until the migrant ends up returning or tries to bring the entire family. So, it is short-term help, but it puts families that are divided in emotional difficulty. In any country that loses migrants, from farmers to scientists, from teachers to doctors —like Cuba which loses a couple of million professional migrants every year for the last couple of years— and increasingly weakens its economy. The same is true of the Venezuelan economy, which, among other things, has been weakened by emigration.

Remittances are short-term aid, but the real economic growth happens where the migrants live, in this case, the United States.

According to the study by the Institute for Fiscal and Economic Policy, work authorization would be beneficial for everyone since granting undocumented immigrants a work authorization would result in an increase in their tax contributions from $40 billion to $137 billion per year since the work authorization would increase salaries.

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

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

The Spanish version of this text is available at the following link: https://aulablog.net/2024/08/26/deportaciones-masivas-podrian-crear-una-recesion-en-ee-uu/

Venezuela: Authoritarian Election Aftermath

By Michael McCarthy

Photo credit to Matias Delacroix /AP

In the wake of a sham Presidential election event, Venezuela’s complex crisis appears to be deepening. Marked by electoral authorities’ apocryphal claims of a government victory, Maduro’s iron-fisted post-election crackdown against the opposition, and thus far unsuccessful efforts at international mediation from Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, the ongoing electoral episode has placed the government and opposition in an increasingly bitter conflict.

Stuck in between stands the population, a large portion of which may migrate unless hope for political change can be revitalized. The region should brace itself for a new movement of Venezuelans abroad.   

The opposition coalition continues to press its case. The opposition is led by María Corina Machado, the winner of open primaries who was forced to endorse Edmundo González Urrutia after the government-controlled courts banned her candidacy. Their election witnesses documented a landslide victory — 67% to 31% for González Urrutia. Due to both the total lack of transparency by the electoral authorities (disaggregated precinct-level data has still not been published though that was the norm in previous Maduro-era elections) and the validity of election witness tally sheets consolidated by the González Urrutia campaign, opposition claims have resonated widely. The Biden administration and multiple Latin American governments recognized González Urrutia as the winner of the election, while even historical Left-wing allies of the chavista political movement, such as former President of Argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, cast serious doubts on Maduro´s claim to victory.

Privately, numerous pro-government voices have admitted they cannot attest to the credibility of the official results, which state that Maduro won with 51% of the vote, a telling admission that no independent checks on executive power grabs exist. However, despite Maduro´s most acute crisis of legitimacy yet, no highly influential ruling party official or strategic international ally (Bolivia, China, Cuba, Russia) has publicly aired such concerns. Maduro seems more influenced by the hard line elements in his government and, amid his intransigence toward calls for releasing credible electoral data, his government seems headed for greater international isolation. Meanwhile, the opposition — though strengthened by its impressive organizational effort to retrieve over 80% of the tally sheets from voting centers — is struggling to capitalize on its status as the electoral majority.

The Biden administration is losing patience with the situation. Following a period of pre-election diplomatic engagement with Maduro, Washington is strongly considering the imposition of new individual sanctions against government authorities involved in engineering the fraudulent election results and responsible for recent human rights violations. According to Venezuelan human rights groups, Maduro’s security forces have arbitrarily detained over 1,500 persons since the July 28 vote, including activists and leaders from the different opposition coalition partners, as well as one hundred and thirty adolescents. Over 20 demonstrators died amid state repression against post-election protests held to contest the official results.

As this dark post-election period continues to unfold, Maduro not only has a corrupt and ideologically conditioned army but also time on his side. The regime´s cohesion, while lower than in previous moments of chavismo´s 25 years of rule, appears to be sufficiently strong for Maduro to hold power until the new presidential period begins in January 2025. Maduro holding power does not guarantee Venezuela’s stability. Rather, the electoral crisis is likely to translate into weaker than previously forecast economic growth (4% according to Spring 2024 projections by the IMF), a scenario that could, in turn prompt Maduro to panic and forsake the more pragmatic economic policies he’s been pursuing to contain inflation. Indeed, Maduro has never articulated an overarching vision to unify the movement the way Chávez did. While his ongoing use of coercion and repression has helped him secure loyalties among ruling party power brokers, those tools cannot fix the underlying problem of internal political fragmentations, some of which grew more salient during the multi-billion corruption scandal that resulted in Maduro jailing his oil czar Tareck El-Aissami, among others.

Thus, while the return to democracy in Venezuela still seems far off, it is also true that Maduro´s leadership has never been under as much pressure as it is today. His ability to deliver economic gains from the oil sector is likely to decline, with historical investors such as China likely to take a wait-and-see approach and Maduro´s ambition to join the BRICs+ and obtain New Development Bank financing likely to go unfulfilled. If the economy spirals downward, then Maduro will face tougher questions from his own coalition’s strategic players in the military. In this respect, Maduro’s blatant rigging of the vote count opens a new, highly uncertain chapter in chavismo’s already stressful history of losing popular legitimacy.

Over sixty years ago, a previous Venezuelan dictator, Marco Pérez Jíménez, lost power months after holding a fraudulent plebiscite on his rule. A general uprising catalyzed a coup against Pérez Jiménez, which in turn yielded a caretaker transition government that later paved the way for restoring democratic rule. History may not repeat itself, but if one is searching for reasons to believe Maduro has not consolidated power for good, Venezuela’s past has plenty to offer.

Michael McCarthy is President of Caracas Wire, and Adjunct Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University

Edited by Ernesto Castaneda, Director of the Center for Latin America and Latino Studies

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

Failure of Anti-Immigrant U.S. Political Campaigns 2018-2023

by Reilly Phelan, Ernesto Castañeda & Joseph Fournier*

Overview of dataset from 2018, 2020, 2022 election cycles for competitive races / Creative Commons License

Contrary to the common assumption, anti-immigrant rhetoric does not ensure electoral success. In an upcoming report from the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, we prove the moral and electoral failure of using anti-immigrant sentiment in campaign platforms. Our data demonstrates the falsity of the notion that being weak on immigration control is an electoral vulnerability.

In an extensive analysis of campaign material and election outcomes from the 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023 gubernatorial and congressional elections, we found various candidates who employed anti-immigrant rhetoric and lost their elections. We defined anti-immigrant rhetoric as overarching narratives of border securitization and the criminalization of immigrants.

· In the 2018 election cycle, twenty candidates in competitive elections employed anti-immigrant rhetoric—and lost.

· In the 2020 election cycle, the utilization of such rhetoric relaxed broadly, and Republican candidates benefitted. Ten candidates fit our criterion. 

· In the 2022 election cycle, twelve candidates lost in competitive elections after employing anti-immigrant rhetoric throughout their campaign. 

· In the 2023 special elections, the degree to which immigration was mentioned declined. The defeat of Daniel Cameron (R) by incumbent Andy Beshear (D) in the Kentucky gubernatorial race met the criterion of our prior analyses.

While anti-immigrant sentiment is not exclusive to the Republican party, we found that the presence of such rhetoric in campaigns was overwhelmingly among Republican candidates. For the 2020 election cycle, we conducted an analysis of elections where seats flipped from Democrat-held to Republican-held. Ultimately, nearly half of the Democrat-to-Republican flipped seat candidates did not utilize anti-immigrant sentiment in the campaign material of their successful campaigns. 

In assessing the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric relaxed during the 2020 cycle compared to the 2018 cycle (not to say anything about 2016). Kris Kobach’s losing 2018 Kansas Gubernatorial campaign exemplifies the failures of a campaign largely platformed on anti-immigrant sentiment. Kobach’s campaign hinged upon his pointed immigration rhetoric and ultimately failed to bring Kobach election victory. “Anti-immigration hard-liner[s]” like Kris Kobach largely declined in competitive 2020 elections. That is not to say that anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric disappeared; rather, fewer candidates premised their campaigns fully upon such narratives.

Candidates who ran in 2018 with anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric and chose to run again in 2020 had an observable decrease in the use of anti-immigrant sentiment in the candidate’s campaign platforms. For candidates like Matt Rosendale, Claudia Tenney, and Young Kim, this shift in campaign rhetoric led them to success in their rematch attempts during the 2020 election cycle. 

Coupled with our analysis of election outcomes of anti-immigrant candidates, we provide below an assessment of narrative trends: 

Several candidates mainly used anti-immigrant rhetoric to signal support for and connection to former President Trump. Strong stances against immigration, particularly during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, became a means to show supposed shared values and allegiance with Trump. By applying “Build the Wall” narratives and framing border security as imperative, candidates premised their campaigns on Trumpist values more broadly. For example, in Greg Gianforte’s winning bid for the Montana Governorship in 2020, Gianforte promised to “stand with President Trump to crack down on illegal immigration.” Interestingly, Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign aligns with our findings— his extensive use of anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric during his 2020 bid for reelection was not enough to lead him to electoral success. 

In 2022, however, references to the border wall largely de-emphasized the securitization project’s explicit link to Trump. While calls to “finish the wall” were present in multiple candidates’ campaign platforms, candidates offered a similar amount of attention to the re-establishment of anti-immigrant policies, including the “Remain in Mexico” program. Arizona Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake regarded the policy as “the best [immigration] policy I’ve seen.” 

Through further assessment of the rhetoric employed by candidates within our 2022 and 2023 set, we see candidates shift their anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric away from targeting migrants themselves and instead targeting Democratic leadership, whom they label as in support of so-called “open borders.” Candidates such as Kari Lake take this concept a step further, arguing that Democrat leadership has a vested interest in the continuation of undocumented immigration as a means of “solidifying a permanent political majority.” These claims on the campaign trail are dangerous and alarmingly similar to the racist theory of “the Great Replacement”— propagating the idea that elites are purposefully encouraging migration to render America more diverse.

The 2022 elections also demonstrated a rise in claims that immigration is no longer confined to states along the U.S.–Mexico border. As efforts spearheaded by Texas Governor Greg Abbott bring “busloads” of immigrants to cities farther north of the border, the framing of immigration as an issue of concern has shifted both on the campaign trail and beyond. For example, a candidate for Pennsylvania Senate Mehmet Oz stated, “Now every state has become a border state.” With the U.S. increasingly externalizing its border by instituting border outposts, historical conceptions of borders and their significance are shifting across the U.S. Thus, the way immigration is discussed during elections is shifting.

As the U.S. gears up for the 2024 election cycle, the moral and electoral failure of anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric must be taken into account. Plain and simple, anti-immigrant rhetoric does not create electoral victories. In assessing both election outcomes and narrative trends, we see how a more humane, measured, and pragmatic view of immigrants can indeed be the morally and politically right thing to do. 

* Reilly Phelan is a research assistant at the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. She has previously worked with the International Rescue Committee and Arizona Legal Women and Youth Services. She will be graduating May 2024 with a degree in International Relations. 

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

*Joseph Fournier is a research assistant at the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted.

From Coup Attempt to Inauguration: Guatemala’s Tumultuous Elections

by Edgar Aguilar*

February 21, 2024

“Dia nacional de la bandera de Guatemala.” Gobierno de Guatemala. Gobierno de Guatemala. CC. / Creative Commons License

Edie Cux, director of Acción Ciudadana, local chapter of Transparency International, spoke with CLALS’ researcher Edgar Aguilar about Guatemala’s recent presidential elections. Read a synthesis of the interview below.  

What were the defining issues in Guatemala’s recent elections? 

The main problem in the social imaginary here in Guatemala was the issue of the fight against corruption. This was key after years of exposed corruption in the government by Alejandro Giammattei. The other issue was security. 

How do presidential elections work in Guatemala? 

In Guatemala, there are two electoral rounds. The first round is in June and the second is in August. In the first round, there were 24 candidates. Many of the candidates had previously run for election. In the second round, there were 2 candidates, Sandra Torres and Bernardo Arévalo. 

Why was Mr. Arévalo making it to the final round a surprise?  

Sandra Torres, a perennial politician, was expected to make it to the second round. The surprise was Bernardo Arévalo. During the first round, Arévalo was initially in ninth place but then emerged as a surprise contender.  

How much support did Mr. Arévalo receive in the second round? 

In the second round, Bernardo Arévalo received 58% of the vote while Torres received 42%. That shows that people were really hoping for a change in the country. Arévalo was a new face and a left-wing or progressive candidate. Alternatively, Torres was a former first lady and had previously run for president twice.  

How did the uncertainty surrounding the inauguration of Mr. Arévalo begin? 

It started immediately after the first round when it was known that both Bernardo Arévalo and Sandra Torres were the favorites. From there, the attacks began against Arévalo’s Semilla party and the electoral authorities. Even the Prosecutor’s Office went after the people who participated in the polling stations and municipal, electoral, and departmental boards. This began a strategy of questioning the electoral results: going through a second review of the counts.  

Who started the questioning of the results?  

The Attorney General’s office initiated legal challenges that cast doubt on the election results. Judges joined in, further amplifying the uncertainty. Other groups used social media accounts, like X and TikTok, to spread narratives questioning the outcome. These unsuccessful efforts were part of a broader attempt by identified “coup plotters,” including influential groups such as congressmen. The goal here was to prevent Bernardo Arévalo from assuming power.  

The instrumentalization of both legal and social media channels was key to their strategy. They questioned Arévalo 

 but especially focused on the election results: the transmission of data and the electoral authority. At this point, the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal were practically in exile. They were stripped of the immunity that the law gives them.  

Were there actual irregularities in the process? 

These were the most observed elections in Guatemala, maybe ever. Actors like the European Union (EU) (with over 100 observers) and civil society organizations had mechanisms (like Mirador Electoral) to watch every step of the elections. After the elections, an Organization of American States (OAS) report confirmed clean results, corroborated by other countries and civil society.  

No international or national observer questioned the elections, except the Attorney General’s office. They illegally dug into things, opened bogus cases, demanded information from the electoral tribunal, and even took ballot boxes! Basically, they stole them, which I believe is illegal. This narrative only came from them. The OAS, with 29 votes, all countries, basically said the Attorney General was trying to mess with the results and backed the results.  

Why was there uncertainty until the day of the inauguration?  

Groups within Congress continued their efforts to obstruct Arévalo’s election until the inauguration day, delaying the swearing-in process by nine hours. 

Can you tell me what the day of the inauguration was like? 

Bernardo’s inauguration victory belongs to the people, especially the indigenous communities. Their 20-day strike, continued resistance, and unwavering presence on inauguration day, with mothers and children even sleeping in the Plaza de la Constitución, were crucial. Their sacrifice overflowed the central park, keeping spirits high even amidst delays. International observers, delegations from the OAS, Spain, the U.S., and key figures like Petro solidified the legitimacy of the process, forcing the “coup groups” to stand down. The transfer of power, thanks to the people’s energy, marked a dramatic shift in Guatemala’s political climate. 

What do Guatemalans expect now that President Arévalo has been inaugurated? 

At this moment, the panorama is changing a lot; there is already an expectation of how the new government is going to develop. There is a lot of hope, and everyone is waiting. Different civil society and especially indigenous peoples, we are all waiting to see what the new government is going to be like.  

What are the key takeaways from this turbulent process? 

Guatemala’s democratic institutions have been under attack since their beginning. The institutions have never been trusted. Indigenous people maintain alternative governance, economy, and justice structures. The state of Guatemala has not enjoyed the legitimacy that has been achieved in other states. Neither has it created the representativeness of a plurinational population. What happened in Guatemala is an example, globally, of what indigenous people have done to protect a democracy that does not even represent them.  

Currently, there are several democratic crises globally. Additionally, there are many examples of the instrumentalization of public institutions, especially the justice system, to attack democracy. Guatemala has brought to light how indigenous peoples propose sustainability not only environmentally but also for democracy and politics.  

Edition: Ernesto Castañeda 

Interview and writing: Edgar Aguilar 

Transcription and translation: Aleli Nava 

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

Edgar Aguilar is an International Economics Master’s student at American University and a research assistant at the Center for Latin America and Latino Studies (CLALS). With four years of experience as a researcher and analyst, he specializes in migration, human security, energy, finance, and environmental policy. He is passionate about sustainable energy solutions that unlock prosperity in the Western Hemisphere.

X- @EdgarAAguilar

Where Is Cuba’s Economic Policy Going?

by Ricardo Torres*

A photo of Havana, Cuba taken in December 2023 / Ernesto Castañeda / Creative Commons License

In the concluding sessions of the National Assembly in December, the Cuban Prime Minister alluded to new economic policy initiatives aimed at “correcting distortions and boosting the economy.” Subsequently, he emphasized that these reforms should not be perceived as mere continuation of previous policies. His discourse encompassed several areas, including pricing and subsidies, the role of the private sector and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), international trade and tariff regulations, investment, and the foreign exchange market, among others. In the first weeks of January, various representatives from the government elaborated on the price increases of essential goods, which has become a focal point of discussions due to the immediate impacts on people’s daily lives. This new wave of measures is being introduced against a unique context:

  • The Cuban economy’s inability to embark on a path to sustainable recovery after the economic downturn triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic is noteworthy. The year 2023 witnessed a contraction in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), marking this period as the most severe crisis encountered by Cuba since the revolution in 1959, given its widespread economic, social, and political implications.
  • The ineffectiveness of previously implemented economic policies, including the so-called “Monetary Ordering,” is evident. The Cuban authorities persistently attribute these economic adversities to external factors, notably the sanctions imposed by the United States. There is little mention of the government’s obvious mistakes.  
  • The Biden administration’s limited opening towards Cuba has narrowed the window to implement substantial measures to mitigate the island’s economic challenges. 
  • The Cuban government has continued to search for support elsewhere. For example, Russia and China have provided some economic support, and Mexico has provided cheap oil, oxygen after the pandemic, and some food. But not one country can provide all the support that Cuba needs.

The measures announced thus far appear to have limited potential in contributing to the economic recovery. The fiscal strategy focuses more on revenue collection rather than containing expenditures, as indicated by the incomplete budget data for 2024 when the deficit is set to increase. 

  • Notably, the emphasis remains on preserving the extensive public sector, including state-owned enterprises, without introducing substantial structural reforms.
  • The marginalization, or at most, a cursory mention of other structural reforms aimed at stimulating domestic supply, is significant. The criticism of the private sector and the lack of initiatives to address external debt are particularly conspicuous. 
  • The potential impact of the price increase and these newly announced measures on the fiscal deficit remains ambiguous, especially given the scant details regarding their implications for the 2024 budget. Besides, these measures will likely exacerbate inflationary pressures in the short term.

In a rather dramatic turn, Cuban authorities announced the suspension of the price increases on January 31st, citing a cyberattack, and failed to commit to a new date. Furthermore, the government reshuffled the cabinet, including the sacking of the Economy Minister. 

The challenges of runaway inflation and elevated fiscal deficits should be viewed as symptoms rather than the root cause of the economic malaise. Historical evidence from the 1970s and 1980s has demonstrated that attempts to manipulate aggregate demand to counter stagflation are futile. Cuba’s economic stagnation, however, presents a unique case, having persisted for decades and intensified due to a series of adverse external shocks commencing around 2016 with the decline of Venezuela’s economy. Superficial adjustments to economic policies are unlikely to yield significant medium-term benefits. Instead, a concerted effort towards systemic change by both the government and international stakeholders is imperative. The existence of the political will and strategic insight, both within Cuba and internationally, to enact such comprehensive reforms to the ultimate benefit of the embattled Cuban people remains an open question.

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

Ricardo Torres is a Professor and Faculty Fellow in the Department of Economics, Research Fellow at American University’s Center for Latin American & Latino Studies, and Coordinator of the Red de Investigadores Cubanos (RedIC).