by Ernesto Castañeda, PhD. Director of the Immigration Lab, American University
Policy brief presented at the Dirksen Senate Building on May 21, 2025.
It bears repeating that immigrants are an integral part of America’s past, present, and future. They are members of local communities. Immigrants are parents and grandparents of many U.S. citizens. Most have been here for years and are part of mixed-status families, where one or more members may be out of immigration status. Immigrants, including undocumented ones, are crucial to the U.S. economy. Most of what immigrants earn is spent on rent, groceries, services, and transportation.
In the current text of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act,” there is a provision to tax remittances by 3.5%. Remittances are the money that immigrants, with or without authorization, send to their families in their place of origin. Remittances are most likely to come from the wages that immigrants earn through their hard work, for which the great majority have already paid taxes. Beyond the issue of double taxation, a tax on remittances may not generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile to administer the program and enforce it. Many would simply avoid this taxation by sending the money through informal means or traveling themselves. Furthermore, taxing remittances would not be enough to change people’s decisions about immigrating or returning. Immigrants already pay between 6 and 3% of what they send in fees to (mostly U.S.-based) businesses such as Western Union that help facilitate these transfers.
Remittances are direct evidence of the many contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy. Remittances come from wages, and wages come from producing ideas, art, goods, and services. Thus, I calculate that in 2023, those who sent remittances contributed over 2.7 trillion, which is 10% of the U.S. GDP. Therefore, remittances represent only 3.5% of all the wealth immigrant workers create in the U.S.
Economic contributions of immigrant workers who remitted in 2023. Source Castañeda 2025.
Most importantly, remittances come at the cost of long-term family separation. Many working-age adults come to the U.S. without documents to work and send money to their spouses and children back in their hometowns, who cannot come to the U.S. due to restrictive immigration laws and heavily patrolled borders. This produces decades-long family separation: parents working in the United States and their children living in developing countries. The mental health implications for minors left behind include feelings of abandonment, separation anxiety, and continued grief for an ambiguous loss.
Children grow with more financial resources but without cohabiting with their parents. Many stay behind under the care of grandparents. Still, once their caregivers pass, we may witness unaccompanied minors heading north, as we have seen since 2014, coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. As we document in our book “Reunited,” the reasons why youth migrated were violence, extortion, and recruitment by gangs, higher educational and economic goals, but primarily the desire and possibility of family reunification with their biological parents.
Beyond the separation experienced by “transnational families,” families divided by borders, we increasingly see cases of family units traveling together that are sometimes separated at the border, as well as settled mixed-status families who suffer from family separations due to deportations. The arrest and debasement of parents by authorities in front of children can create a sense of insecurity. Children feel parental separation as abandonment, resulting in reduced self-esteem and self-efficacy. When legal avenues for asylum and low-skilled workers are reduced, international migration becomes more expensive, dangerous, stigmatized, criminalized, and possibly traumatic. This reduces worker productivity and the emotional resources immigrants can deploy to raise the next generations of Americans.
Immigration is an investment in the form of human capital and economic resources. In 2023, the USA received over $7.2 billion in remittances, largely from immigrant family members. Immigrant-initiated family separations produce remittance flows, but they also produce negative health outcomes for the children of immigrants abroad. State-initiated family separations due to deportations weaken the economy by removing breadwinners and leaving U.S.-family members more vulnerable to economic and psychological stressors. Deportations impact international and U.S. families; they also impact foreign economies in the short term but weaken the U.S. economy in the short and longer terms by reducing the size of the workforce and the overall population. A sign of this is that for every working-age person deported to Mexico (who earns the minimum wage in both countries), Mexico loses around US$4,200 in remittances but could gain around $22,613 yearly in wealth by adding another much-needed worker. If the U.S. deports 5 million Mexican citizens and some of their adult U.S.-citizen or third-country family members, Mexico could gain US$113 billion, almost double the US$63 billion remitted to Mexico in 2023. This would also cause family reunifications and population growth in Mexico.
What can Congress do? Taxing remittances is counterproductive. Many immigrants could have faced significant trauma in their countries of origin, and on their way, and immigration law enforcement creates new stressors that exacerbate depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Amnesty programs and creating new pathways to citizenship to ease family reunification and immigrant integration would result in higher taxes, better security, and physical and mental health for all US residents.
Thanks to Tanya Golash-Boza and the staff of the University of California DC Center and the Scholar Strategy Network for co-organizing the policy briefing with CLALS.
Published May 23, 2025.
You can republish for free if you keep it whole and include the author’s name, or quote a section, crediting the author.
Although the xenophobic discourse has not changed much, Trump’s second administration has been much more aggressive in its goal of reducing the number of immigrants arriving at the U.S./Mexico border and within the United States. New executive orders eliminate some of the modest practical achievements of the Biden administration, put in place to handle the search for asylum, safety, and stability in a more orderly and humane way. The new administration is planning to end many of the humanitarian “paroles” and temporary protected status (TPS) for people from many countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other places in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as Afghanistan and Ukraine. So, more than reducing the number of undocumented immigrants, Trump is creating hundreds of thousands of new undocumented immigrants in the interior of the country with his executive orders. An amnesty would do the reverse. Which reminds us that immigration status is the result of legislative decisions and that with the signing of an official law or document by the legislative and executive powers, this status can be changed for millions of people almost immediately.
Unfortunately, Trump is not interested in negotiating with Democrats for a comprehensive immigration reform that includes regularizations, as well as more border security measures and pathways to immigrate legally in the future. On the contrary, Trump’s second administration is in the process of hindering and making legal migration much harder, and foreigners’ ability to stay, more tenuous.
Trump is obsessed with carrying out mass deportations. So, Trump’s DHS is being much more aggressive not only by deporting newly arrived people at the border, where the numbers are very low due to changes made during the last months of the Biden administration, and because Mexico is preventing more foreigners from reaching the US border through internal enforcement and the US military being deployed at the border — but deporting people from large cities, especially democratic-majority ones. Against precedent, authorities have entered churches and universities a few times looking for people to deport. Faith helps many to lower their anxiety and the fear of being deported, but does not give them a foolproof sanctuary, not even in their churches.
Studying, having a visa, DACA, or even a Green Card, are no longer as much of a protection from deportation as before. It is false that Trump 2.0 focuses on deporting violent criminals; the vast majority of deportees have no criminal record. Many men have been deported, but also women and children. If closed borders and mass deportations continue, the U.S. will surely enter a recession because of a decrease in workers.
Another development is how much Trump is pressing other countries to stop the arrival of migrants and asylum petitioners to the US and to receive national deportees from other countries. Venezuela and Colombia are sending their own airplanes to transport them back. Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, among others, are collaborating with the Trump government to divert migratory flows. This opens opportunities for the cities and countries of the region that actively receive and allow people who have to flee their homes for major reasons to settle down and work legally. Local growth due to an immigration population bonus can easily exceed revenue from remittances in large economies (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia). The smallest countries, where remittances are a significant part of GDP, will have to make more adjustments and sacrifices to look for organic economic growth alternatives. In both cases, the returning human resources could compensate or even exceed the portion of their salaries (less than 20%) of what they earned and spent abroad. Comprehensive research and public education are required to dispel anecdotes that portray immigrants as a threat. Legislation like that in France or Germany could be passed to disincentivize opportunistic politicians from weaponizing immigration, increasing xenophobia, and anti-immigrant animus for short-term political gain. The richest countries in the world have over ten percent of their population born abroad. This is an opportunity for Latin America to do so in a way that increases opportunities for everyone.
Poverty, violence, and organized crime will continue to force some people to move internally and across borders, but migration will be increasingly within the same country or region and not so much to the United States or Europe. In the medium term, this exogenous shock can produce a more local, sustainable economic growth with less family separation across borders.
Ernesto Castañeda, Director, Center for Latin American and Latin Studies, and The Immigration Lab, American University, Washington, D.C.
On January 25th, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order, called Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, to attack sanctuary jurisdictions all over the U.S. Although this Executive Order was blocked by a judge, the side effects were seen. More cities became sanctuary jurisdictions, even colleges.
But what is a “Sanctuary Jurisdiction”? First, we have to understand that there isn’t one full definition of a “Sanctuary Jurisdiction,” nor does each one have the same laws. Generally, being a ‘Sanctuary Jurisdiction’ means to “have policies in place designed to limit cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions.” There is a range of how each policy works, but it keeps the immigrant communities safe.
In 2017, Illinois became a sanctuary state through the TRUST Act, and on December 15th, 2020, the D.C. District Council voted on the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020, establishing Washington, D.C. as a Sanctuary jurisdiction. On the opposite end, some states banned Sanctuary Cities straight out during the first Trump administration, including Arkansas, Florida, and Texas.
On the 1st day of the Biden-Harris Administration, President Biden signed an Executive Order called, Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities, which undid Trump’s 2017 Executive Order. Since then, the republican party has attacked Sanctuary Jurisdictions again and again.
At a March 5th, 2025, hearing with the mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York City, the Chair of the House Oversight Committee Rep. James Comer (R-KY-1) stated, “These reckless sanctuary policies also force federal immigration officers to go into local communities to apprehend criminal illegal aliens.” We keep hearing that sanctuary policies are bad for the United States, but that is not true.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) posted on the same day of the hearing that a study found a “decrease in crime in cities and states that prioritize welcoming instead of targeting immigrants.” Looking at my home city of Chicago, crime keeps going down, even at a time when immigration has increased.
In 2025, Trump’s first day in office signed an Executive Order, called “PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST INVASION,” which, on its 17th section, calls for Sanctuary Jurisdictions to be punished until they get rid of the laws that make them sanctuary, or else they will not receive any federal funding. On April 24th, a judge ruled that it was unconstitutional.
Other related bills to look out for include 1) HR. 32 No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act; 2) HR. 205 No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act; 3) HR. 1879 No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act; 4) HR. 2056 District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act.
UPDATE APRIL 29TH
On April 28th, Trump signed a new Executive Order, called “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” Under this order, any Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be stripped of any federal funding in 30 days. Additionally, this order will eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented and DACA students across the United States. Laws that help undocumented college students pay for college, for example, in Illinois, the Retention of Illinois Students & Equity (RISE) Act will be eliminated.
Anthony Sandoval is a research assistant with The Immigration Lab
Edited by Enresto Castañeda, Director of The Immigration Lab and Katheryn Olmos, Research Assistant
As of April 21, over 250 colleges and universities have identified more than 1,500 international students and recent graduates who have experienced a sudden change in their visa status. The exact number of students who have lost their F-1, J-1 visas, or their Optional Training (OPT) extension, however, is hard to track. Sometimes, the students are not immediately aware that their status has changed; universities are not informed if student visas have been revoked; and several universities have not been forthcoming about the exact number of students losing status.
THE PATH TO A US DEGREE
International students are some of the most vetted communities in the United States. Their journeys to American colleges and universities are long, arduous, and expensive. In addition to the enormous pressure to be the “best and brightest” in their respective nations, particularly to qualify for financial aid and/or scholarship, compared to their American counterparts, international students have to jump through additional hoops to enter the US. This involves submission of the visa application form, institutional certification (the college or the university of acceptances needs to be approved by SEVP Immigration and Customs Enforcement); proof of admissions and of full-time enrollment as a student; evidence of English language proficiency (the TOEFL exam, that has its own charges); extensive family financial information and banking documents); application fee payment for the Student and Exchange Visa form (SEVIS); the DS-160; a valid passport; evidence of permanent home residency; and evidence of economic resources and any financial aid they may be receiving in order to secure an interview date that may take weeks or months to schedule. Getting to the interview may be complicated if the Embassy is in a different city or country.
The interviews at the US embassy are relatively extensive procedures where vetting takes place in real-time. While USCIS officers are professionals, these interviews can be subjective – and acceptance and denial of an applicant may happen at the whims of an individual officer. Anecdotally, prospective students may be denied if they seem “suspicious,” assessed as “not likely to return to their home countries,” and even “for having family in the US.” Post 9/11, the US government has sub-contracted the visa application collection process to private security companies particularly in the Global South – this means that before the actual visa interview, prospective applicants have to submit all their paperwork to these companies – which involves another financial charge – before they are reviewed by USCIS officers.
If one is fortunate to have passed the interview step, international students are granted two things: a paper form connected to SEVIS (which determines whether a student can legally remain in the US once inside the country, and which is administered by the Department of Homeland [DHS] and used by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to monitor a student’s immigration record and identify individuals who may be in violation of their status) and the US F-1 (or similar) visa, which controls entry into the country and is granted by the State Department.
Once in the US, international students have to maintain their full-time student status, are not allowed to work more than 20 hours a week on campus, and cannot seek employment outside their respective campuses.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN THE US
For decades, the United States has remained the top destination for higher education. Boasting its Ivy League, fantastic STEM programs, well-renowned research centers and faculty, funding opportunities, competitive liberal arts colleges, and well-established public universities, education from the US is assumed to set an individual up for success. US academic institutions also have a global reputation as spaces of freedom of expression, where critical thinking is encouraged, and debates with peers and professors are fundamental to learning. Many of the students who are driven to come to US universities are not only attracted by the promise of a world-class education, but also by the opportunity to critique and analyze power without government surveillance and in an environment assumedly free of fear and censure. While many students do return to their home countries upon graduation, others choose to remain to pursue their graduate degrees, use the OPT to gain professional skills, or seek sponsorship for H1-B visas to continue working in their fields of specialization.
WHAT’S IN IT FOR THE US?
Higher education has not only been an unrivalled form of US soft power, but for decades it has been a reliable source of enormous revenue. First, the US has been able to benefit significantly from the talent pipeline of highly educated graduates in both STEM, the social sciences, humanities, and the arts. According to 2024 International Institute of Education (IIE) data, 56% of international students across academic levels have pursued STEM fields of study; one in four (25%) have studied math and computer science, while nearly one in five (19%) have studied engineering – within this pool, those who choose and can stay in the US are poised to be part of the community that continue to drive research and innovation forward. In 2024, Scott Weinhold, the then Senior Bureau Official for the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs stated, “The ties formed between U.S. and international students today are the basis of relationships for future business and trade, science and innovation, and government relations.”
There are over 1.1 million international students from 217 countries and territories, who combinedly comprise 6% of the total US higher education population. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the education of international students has also been a reliable source of economic revenue, making it the country’s 10th-largest export. Last year, the economic contributions of international students totaled between $43.8 and over $50 billion – more than the value of U.S. telecommunications, computer, and information services exports combined. Their presence has also resulted in more than 378,175 jobs; i.e., for every three international students, one U.S. job was created.
Economic activities of international students in community colleges alone measured at $2.0 billion, and supported more than 8,400 jobs. Last year, 12 states broke the $1 billion mark as a result of international students generating 57 percent of the total dollar contribution to the U.S. economy, with California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, and Illinois being the largest recipients of the economic gains. Furthermore, international students enrolled in U.S. colleges’ English language programs contributed $371.3 million and supported 2,691 jobs.
WHO ARE BEING TARGETED?
For a number of years, the majority of the international students in the US came from China, followed closely by India. Other countries of origin of many international students include Mexico, the Philippines, Canada, Colombia, Japan, Korea, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Kenya, Italy, Spain, Nigeria, South Africa, and Ethiopia. In 2023-24, India became the country with the largest number of international students in the US, surpassing China with 331,602 students.
Given the large numbers of Indian and Chinese students in the US, the majority of those whose visas are being revoked and SEVIS cancelled are impacting Indian (50%) and Chinese (14%) nationals.
While not all universities have disclosed which nationals have been targeted, existing data shows that students from Bangladesh, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, Colombia, Nepal, and Japan are also amongst the most impacted.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
The pattern of whose visas and/or SEVIS are being cancelled is telling, pointing to the strategy as being part of a broader concerted effort to curtail immigration from the Global South in the name of “national security.” This means at the broadest level, the loss of legal status needs to be contextualized within the drag-net of multiple initiatives currently at play: increasing surveillance on migrants, suspension of US refugee resettlement; ending of temporary protected status (TPS) for populations such as the Afghans and efforts to end it for Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians; cancellation of legal status of migrants who entered through the CBPOne app; detention; and efforts at ending birthright citizenship, and “mass expulsions” which have also resulted in the deportation of “non-white” individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the detention of 20-year old US citizen Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez.
Tufts PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk, Columbia doctoral candidate Ranjani Srinivasan, and Cornell PhD student Momodou Taal, recently admitted to a PhD program Ohio State University Ahwar Sultan -all have one thing in common with legal permanent residents and Columbia students Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung – they were either outspoken in writing and/or in student activism or, in the case of Ranjani, assumed to have a “pro-Palestinian” stance. Today, they are in detention and face the possibility of deportation (Rumeysa, Mahmoud, and Mohsen); have“self-deported” (Ranjani and Momodou under threat of ICE arrests); are in hiding from ICE (Yunseo); or have their visa revoked (Ahwar Sultan). In detention is also University of Alabama PhD student Alireza Doroudi, who has been arrested for “national security reasons” without any specified charges and whose lawyers have argued he has never participated in anti-government protests and did not violate any laws.
The politics around Palestine in the US and increasing silencing of academic freedom is at the heart of why international students and immigrants -mainly (although not only) from Muslim backgrounds – are being targeted with arrests, detentions, threats of deportation and possibly de-naturalization. Further evidence has been provided by the US administration itself. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked the authority to penalize noncitizens for speech under two separate provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Following Rümeysa’s chilling arrest, he further stated that the US was revoking visas to clamp down on pro-Palestinian students for writing op-eds, participating in “movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus,” adding: “We do it every day, every time I find one of these lunatics.” The US State Department has also ordered consular offices to significantly expand their screening processes for new student visa applicants and requests for visa renewals through comprehensive social media investigations and exclude people they deem to support “terrorism” or hold “hostile attitude towards US citizens or US culture, including government institutions or founding principles.”
Chinese Students: Pawns in US-China Relations
For several years, there has been rising concern in conservative and Republican quarters regarding the presence of Chinese students in US colleges and universities. While many Chinese students and students from Hong Kong themselves are subjected to surveillance and harassment by Chinese authorities, they have also increasingly become pawns as tensions between the US and China have grown. Under the first Trump administration, during the trade war in late 2018, China expelled three Wall Street Journal reporters for a racially insensitive headline: “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia” — a phrase that carries strong undertones of European colonial history in China. The US retaliated by limiting staff for five Chinese news organizations in the U.S, ending Hong Kong’s preferential trade status, and closing the Chinese Consulate in Houston, accusing it of espionage efforts. China then closed the American consulate in Chengdu. In 2018, then Senator Marco Rubio and FBI director Christopher Wray told a Senate panel that American academe is naïve about the intelligence and national security risks posed by Chinese students and scholars; Wray revisited these comments in 2022 regarding FBI investigations on the research connections between American universities and China. These accusations underlie the fact that Chinese students and scholars, particularly in the STEM field, have continued to come under scrutiny. In 2020, under the first Trump administration, more than 1,000 Chinese students had their visas revoked.
In 2025, there is a bill in the US Congress called the Stop CCP VISAs Act, aimed at halting the issuance of student visas to Chinese nationals looking to study at U.S. universities or take part in exchange programs. Furthermore, on March 19, the U.S. congressional committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sent a letter to Darryll Pines, President of the University of Maryland – College Park, requesting detailed information on Chinese students at the institution, citing that those enrolled in STEM programs, particularly in federally-funded research, constitute “national security risks.”
The Case of Minor Infractions
While Palestinian activism and tensions with China explain a significant number of visa revocations and SEVIS cancellations, many other international students are not aware of why they have suddenly lost their status. Emerging stories show that some of those who lost their status have had some type of minor infractions, where their fingerprints were taken by law enforcement during their residency in the US. Fingerprinting does not equate a criminal conviction and can be taken during arrests even if no charges are filed. In other words, any police detentions, non-arrest citations such as a traffic stop, fishing license violation, or other minor charges that were dismissed or dropped –none of which are deportable offenses – are now grounds for visa and/or SEVIS cancellations.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has filed a lawsuit to block the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty members who participate in protected First Amendment activities. More than 133 international students have also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Thus far, a federal judge in Atlanta has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent international students from having their visas revoked for a few weeks.
IMPACT OF SEVIS AND VISA CANCELLATIONS
Visa revocations mean that international students and, in some instances, their families are facing a legal limbo marked by confusion, anxiety, and fear. Losing status may mean, in some cases, that students are no longer able to continue with classes, graduate, or continue to work through the OPT program, which in turn translates immediately to a loss in income. Traditionally, the expiration of an exchange visitor visa does not mean a person is immediately considered to be in the country illegally. However, a number of students have received emails from DHS that they need to “self-deport” within seven days of their visa revocations or get arrested. The legality of such communications is still in question. Nonetheless, the fear of ICE arrests and detention is stalking many students, many of whom may not have the immediate means to purchase tickets to return to their countries of birth. Furthermore, being forced back to their countries of origin upon threat of deportation signals for many a bleak immediate future. In cases of PhD candidates such as Suguru Onda and Xiaotian Liu (whose visas were re-instated after their revocation), Ranjani Srinivasan, Momodou Taal and others who have been working for years on their research, SEVIS cancellations and visa revocations may mean they will not be able to receive their doctoral degrees.
The US too will be impacted by this ongoing attack on international students. Not only are campuses being disrupted by the loss of students in the classroom, but the American economy and society will not be able to benefit from the current and future contributions of these students if they are forced to leave the country.
In recent years, higher education has become a more competitive market, where US dominance has increasingly been challenged. Facing the rising costs of a US degree, complex, time-consuming, and expensive visa application processes, increasing scrutiny, and the risk of being caught up in US geopolitical tensions, international students have started turning to other countries for higher education. In recent years, Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden have been accepting international students in larger numbers. Outside of Europe, China now has several prestigious universities, including in STEM, that are attracting Chinese students as well as students from the rest of Asia and Africa. Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Korea now boast more affordable and rigorous university degrees, some of which also attract American students. In specialized fields such as medicine and engineering, India and Bangladesh are also attracting Asian and African students.
WHAT CAN US UNIVERSITIES DO?
Universities have a responsibility to protect both academic freedom and their students, staff, and faculty, both of which are at the heart of higher education. In this moment of crisis, in addition to protecting under-represented minorities, DACA recipients, undocumented students, transgender students and members of the LGBTQ+ community, they have a responsibility to protect international students and students with permanent residency, those who have been outspoken on humanitarian issues, and protect all students’ right to freedom of expression.
Universities should not release any records or personal data upon request unless the request is supported by a signed judicial warrant as required by law. They should make every effort to de-escalate a situation concerning a student where violence is not involved. Finally, given the level of uncertainty and anxiety facing international students and all other students with different citizenship status, it is incumbent on all faculty and higher ed community members to continue to respond to international students and vulnerable communities with the ethos of care and compassion as higher ed navigates these turbulent waters.
As of April 25th, the Trump administration has restored thousands of student visas that have been terminated
Tazreena Sajjad teaches at the School of International Service at American University and is a member of The Immigration Lab.
In a world where less than 1% of refugees are ever permanently resettled, the United States has chosen to suspend all refugee admissions indefinitely. The Trump Administration has ordered significant changes to the U.S. refugee resettlement apparatus. The fallout from these executive actions has caused significant turmoil for resettlement agencies and the populations they serve.
The United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) was established in 1980. Since then, including through wartime and the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has accepted refugees in the wake of international crises and suffering, without fail. That is, until President Trump’s Executive Order “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.” Asserting that the United States has been “inundated” by immigrants and refugees, the Executive Order issued a 90-day pause on all refugee arrivals. This pause has now been extended to an indefinite suspension of arrivals.
In the wake of this Executive Order, flights with vetted refugees chosen to be resettled in the United States were canceled, lifelines were abruptly severed, and families were left separated.
The suspension of USRAP marks a stark juxtaposition not only to the approval designation of 125,000 refugee admissions in 2024 under the Biden Administration but also to the 15,000 approved refugee admissions under Trump’s final year in his first term. The USRAP is a pathway towards safety and stability for families facing persecution and a sometimes decades-long backlog to receive permanent resettlement.
Ahead of the suspension, 22,000 refugees were “approved for departure” and awaiting their flight to the United States. Refugees with this designation only have a certain amount of time to travel to the United States before they must restart the screening process, which often takes years to complete. These thousands of individuals fleeing violence and turmoil are watching their opportunity for resettlement slip away.
Another sweeping action affecting refugee resettlement in the United States is the January 24th Stop Work Order to programs funded through foreign assistance. While refugee resettlement operates in the United States, much of its international apparatus and funding are tied to foreign aid— namely, the funding that supports refugees in their first 90 days post-arrival. This period in refugee resettlement is called Reception & Placement (R&P).
R&P funding supports early-resettlement needs, including rental assistance, cultural orientation, and case management. It also subsidizes the salary of refugee staff. Since the Stop Work Order was issued, resettlement agencies could not incur new costs for services under the R&P period. Mass layoffs have become commonplace across U.S. resettlement agencies.
With the indefinite pause of USRAP, the R&P program in the U.S. became obsolete on April 20, as all admitted refugees hit the 90-day mark. However, the consequences of this funding loss will continue far beyond. There is legitimate concern across U.S. resettlement agencies because many refugee clients face housing insecurity and uncertainty surrounding the continuation of benefits like SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid.
The actions of the Trump Administration have devastated refugee resettlement. The program’s international infrastructure is currently being dismantled, which, in turn, curtails the possibility of the program’s revival under current or future administrations. On February 26th, President Trump terminated contracts with major U.S. resettlement agencies, marking an attempt to end federal support of refugee resettlement definitively.
The future of refugee resettlement in the United States hangs in the balance of court cases like Pacito v. Trump, which are fighting for the return of both refugee resettlement funding and infrastructure. Through two separate rulings from a Washington District Court, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead enjoined the Trump administration’s suspension of refugee admissions and termination of resettlement agency contracts. No tangible change has resulted from these rulings as the appeals process continues. Judge Whitehead’s Order has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The future of the program is uncertain, but the pain caused to specific refugees and the weakening of refugee resettlement worldwide are clear.
Reilly Phelan is a Research Assistant for the Immigration Lab. A 2024 American University’s School of International Service graduate, she now works in refugee resettlement.
Edited by Enresto Castañeda, Director of The Immigration Lab
President Donald Trump’s executive orders surrounding immigration have sparked fear amongst marginalized groups and controversy amid those who hold America’s policy process dear. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship order which proposes the end to birthright citizenship. Although several judges have blocked the order and several other lawsuits have been filed, this specific executive order has caused concerns surrounding the integrity of the Constitution.
One major issue with Trump’s birthright citizenship order is his interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While he recognizes that the 14th amendment was originally intended to extend citizenship to formally enslaved African Americans during Reconstruction, his argument misinterprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” In this order, a mother’s and father’s immigration status at the time of birth determines if a federal department or agency can grant or recognized documents recognizing the United States citizenship of their child. However, there is no recent legal precedent supporting the use of a parent’s citizenship status to determine if a person born within the United States is a proper interpretation of the Amendment or any immigration law. Although Trump acknowledges the historical context in which the 14th Amendment was written, his interpretation would not be applicable to historical context Trump is supposedly intending to preserve. Ironically, Trump’s call for a stricter interpretation of the 14th Amendment calls into question how case law has broadened our understanding of how we view citizenship, even for corporations, which the law considers “artificial people” [see Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. Railroad, 188 U.S. 394 (1886);Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 588 U.S. 310 (2010)].
As a result of this Executive Order and many other policies which have led to the recent increase in ICE activity around the nation. President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador proposed a deal with the Trump Administration to allow for the United States to transport both deportees and imprisoned U.S. citizens to El Salvador for a fee. Despite some praise of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele’s “tough on crime” approach, this deal raises concerns about the conditions of these prisons. Since 2020, organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported on the lack of due process, deaths under custody, and living conditions that are below international standards. Although American immigration law would allow El Salvador to accept deportees in an instance in which a deportee returning to their country of origin is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” those factors are not the basis of President’s Bukele’s offer. Likewise, the deportation of American citizens in unconstitutional and violates the rights of incarcerated people. Nonetheless, on April 8, 2025, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt affirmed that President Trump discussed the possibility and legality of deporting American citizens deemed “violent repeat offenders.”
The offer to accept American prisoners further cements the controversial slave status placed upon incarcerated people in the United States and El Salvador. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery except for punishment for a crime within the United States and territories within its control. This manifests as the use of prison labor in both the public and private sector in exchange for pennies an hour. Similarly, Salvadoran prisoners make use of prison labor through their Cero Ocio program where prisoners were used to renovate schools, hospitals, and police headquarters under the guise of rehabilitation of prisons. Through this deal, El Salvador is on pace to economically benefit from accepting deportees and American prisoners in exchange for a fee as well as potentially increasing their prison labor force in a system reminiscent of slavery.
The relationship between the Trump Administration and El Salvador has already manifested into negative consequences for deportees and documented immigrants. Despite a U.S. District Judge ordering a temporary halt of the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, the flight continued anyway. This decision to disregard the order was a move cosigned by President Bukele on his official X account. Furthermore, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a permanent resident living in Maryland was deported to El Salvador due to an “administrative error” and his return is being delayed due to pending litigation.
Trump’s birthright Executive Order and El Salvador’s proposal should be cause for concern for everyone regardless of immigration or citizenship status. These actions serve as a reminder of the Trump administration’s total disregard for the law and that solidarity is necessary for preserving human rights. Marking undocumented people and incarcerated citizens as undesirable leads us to overlook the harm being done and what is to come if we do not speak out against it.
Caryalyn Jean is a Research Assistant at The Immigration Lab at American University
USCIS Application Support Center, retrieved from wikimedia
A memorandum was issued on February 14 by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) acting Director Andrew Davidson that has effectively paused all pending immigration applications filed by migrants already living in the United States. The USCIS cited fraud and security concerns as the reasons for the halt, and the application freeze will remain in place indefinitely as government officials investigate and identify potential fraud cases
Thousands of Migrants Left in Limbo
Changes announced by the Trump administration directly impact a number of migrants, including from Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Ukraine, who have received legal entry and stay in the United States from categorical parole programs established under the Biden administration. Among them includes beneficiaries under Uniting for Ukraine, created in 2022 to provide Ukrainian citizens fleeing from Russia’s invasion legal entry to the United States. Applicants under the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela (CHNV) Parole Program are also affected. Initiated in 2023, this humanitarian parole program allowed nationals from these countries to seek stability and refuge in the U.S. In the first six months of the program, nearly 160,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans arrived lawfully under this legal process. The latest data from USCIS shows that in December 2024, right before Trump’s inauguration, 27,340 migrants arrived in the United States with parole grants.
Applicants under the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) Program will also be affected. This program was made to reunite eligible individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and Haiti with family in the United as they wait for a family-based green card. It was created, in part, to discourage migrants from making dangerous crossings at the southern border by instead offering a legal migration pathway.
Lastly, those who have pending applications for Temporary Protective Status (TPS) from certain countries, including Haiti, Ukraine, and Venezuela, will also be impacted. The TPS program allows individuals to seek protection in the United States from ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary conditions. A TPS designation can be granted in 6, 12, or 18 months increments and recipients will need to re-register to keep their protection. However, Venezuelan and Ukrainian beneficiaries have had their protections extended until October 2025, while Haitian beneficiaries are covered through February 2026. As of March of 2024, there were 863,800 people living in the U.S. with TPS.
Legal Pathways Shut Down, Deportation Risks Rise
The programs previously mentioned provide work permits, travel authorization, protection from deportation, and legal migration channels to individuals from designated countries seeking a better life away from persecution and poverty or to reunite with family members in the U.S. However, under this policy shift, officials will no longer process any pending applications for these programs. Effectively, impeding applicants’ ability to transition to another legal status and making them vulnerable to deportation from the country.
In just his first month in office, President Trump has deported 37,660 people, and this number is expected to rise in the coming months due to the halts on the programs above that leave those already in the U.S. without legal status. It is evident that while Trump aggressively targets undocumented immigrants, he also has little regard for those who arrive under excruciating circumstances through legal migration processes.
Valeria Chaconis a research assistant with the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University in Washington, DC
The United States is where migrants come for that golden opportunity. To live a better life. To work, to be safe, to get an education. But once one leaves “La Jaula de Oro,” (“The Golden Cage”) they can’t return. All they have might be a green or red card, or maybe no card at all.
The U.S. has a visa program for temporary workers in “specialty occupations” called the H1-B visas. During Trump’s first term, he claimed the H1-B visa program was “very, very, bad for workers” and Suspended the H1-B visa program in 2020. Trump has switched his stance on H1-B visas, claiming “it’s a great program.” After Elon Musk showed his support for H-1B visas, nothing has happened to support H-1B Visas meaning we might still see the reform that was outlined in Project 2025 to make the program ‘better.’
Other types of visa programs might be affected within the next couple of months, student visas, and visas for survivors of human trafficking and other crimes. Another program that is getting attacked is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). All visas get a card and DACA gets a work permit card. Just another card to keep ahold of.
A migrant factory worker from Chicago said, “I have been waiting for my daughter to turn 21 so I can get my green card.” This working migrant applied to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV) 15 years ago and is still waiting for a Green Card. The DV program is a lottery. In 2023, the DV program had nearly 9.6 million qualified entries and only 50 thousand recipients.
The cost of green cards is already so high, that the filing cost for a family-based green card is approximately 3 thousand dollars for an applicant applying from within the United States. Other categories of green cards may have different costs depending on which one the person is aiming for, not including legal service fees. For DACA it costs $555 to renew online. The most expenses being EB-5 visas, which are for foreign investors that has made investments within the United States around one million dollars and created 10 permanent full-time jobs. For these pathways are not accessible to everyone due to the cost. While some immigrants may not have green cards, visas, or DACA, one thing that they might have are Red Cards ━which can make a difference in whether a person stays in the U.S. or gets deported. Red Cards were made back in 2007 by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Red cards are used to protect undocumented immigrants from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They can come in 19 different languages, including Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Tagalog.
Photo of the front and back of a Red Card by Anthony Sandoval
Trump’s “Border Czar,” Tom Homan stated, “For instance, Chicago—very well-educated, they’ve been educated on how to defy ICE, how to hide from ICE.”
On February 25th, President Trump talked about a new type of pathway to citizenship, he calls it a Gold Card. For years, many groups have been asking for an improved way for citizenship or an easier way to come into the United States. The answer was simple: a card that’s worth five million dollars. Ask your friends and family to help cover the cost. It’s that simple… but few people have that type of money. This new card is for investors. The gold card would just replace the EB-5 program.
We don’t need this. Not a 5 million dollar pathway that very few people can pay for. We need another way for citizenship, another way to come into the United States, a faster program that allows people to get green cards and not wait for years. We must remember these people are not “aliens;” they are people. One action that can help is supporting the Dream & Promise Act of 2025 that offers some DACA recipients, immigrant youth, Temporary Protected Status holders, and Deferred Enforced Departure holders a pathway to citizenship.
Anthony Sandoval is a research assistant with the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab at American University in Washington, DC.
Edited by Katheryn Olmos, Ana Gaston, and Ernesto Castañeda,
Image of Welcome to Florida: The Sunshine State sign retrieved from Flikr
The atmosphere is so thick in Florida, you could cut it with a knife. Immigrants feel like they cannot catch a breath. As one immigrant told me, “every day there is something new.” Imagine having to check a map of zones to avoid every time you want to go outside, commuting further away from home to shop for groceries, having to refrain from speaking your native language in public, or avoiding going out to get coffee with a friend to lower the risk of encountering ICE raids or deportation. Living in constant fear, paranoia, and mistrust is no way to live.
State patrols will sit along highways to spot white working vans. In one case, a construction worker was pulled over in his working white van one evening at the end of January because his headlights were “too opaque.” The police officer asked him, “How long have you been in the U.S.?” to which the worker replied, “Over 20 years.” Then the officer gives him a ticket for driving without a license and tells him to go on with his day.
Shortly after the incident, Florida Governor Ron Desantis announced that he would enforce Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Therefore, the Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV) will join forces with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Through this partnership, ICE authorizes the Florida Highway Patrol to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants. State troopers will now ask individuals about their immigration status on day-to-day traffic stops. Additionally, state troopers are authorized to detain those suspected to be undocumented, regardless of their actual immigration status. This would completely dismiss the notion of “innocent until proven guilty,” leading to racial profiling of Latino drivers and causing fear among Florida residents. Florida residents have seen an increase in law enforcement. Latinos are more frequently reporting seeing people they know stopped and detained by law enforcement. It feels that this policy is only targeting the brown and immigrant community in Florida.
As Florida faces various problems, including the housing crisis, high home and auto insurance premiums, environmental crisis, and idle hurricane impacts, Desantis believes the so-called “immigration crisis” is the biggest issue at hand. On February 13, Desantis signed the “toughest immigration law in the country.” With this legislation, Desantis will allocate $298 million for detaining and deporting immigrants and increase the penalty for crimes committed by immigrants, including requiring the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who commit capital crimes. Additionally, Desantis is creating a new crime of entering the state of Florida as an undocumented person on top of the already existing federal crime of entering the U.S. through an irregular pathway.
There has been an increase in people moving in from out-of-state, including former residents of New York, California, and New Jersey. Many of them are moving to a state where their out-of-state wages for remote work or social security payments get them further, and the politics better align with their conservative beliefs. The changing demographics and anti-immigrant politics in Florida have also been creating a hostile environment for immigrant Floridians.
While Florida is experiencing an increase in residents from out of state, there is also an increase in immigrant residents moving to safer places out of state. Fleeing persecution is a recurring theme for immigrants; they often find themselves in a state of movement and fear while hoping to one day achieve the American Dream. Those who have lived in Florida for many years, even decades, face significant challenges when it comes to leaving their homes. Many immigrants who have established homes, businesses, children, and pets would prefer to remain in Florida. Immigrants who have built lives in Florida or lack the financial resources to leave are modifying their social and economic behaviors out of fear of deportation.
Florida is already witnessing the impact of migrants no longer participating in their social and economic atmosphere. Businesses that rely on Latino consumers are feeling this impact. Restaurants and other franchises that tend to be busy on weekend nights are empty. Rosy, a frequenter of Jacksonville, Florida’s Latino nightlife, says local Latino bar and club events are practically empty. She states that Latino clubs that always had long wait times to enter now have no lines.
Construction work is down due to high interest rates, weather conditions, and labor shortages. Despite Desantis’ push for mass deportations to solve the housing crisis in Florida, we need immigrants to solve the housing crisis in Florida. On February 20, 6 Mexican workers were detained at a gas station on Southside Blvd. in Jacksonville, Florida. Every day more and more innocent Latinos are detained by ICE. Instilling fear against our most vulnerable yet essential members of the community is not the solution to any of the state’s problems
Katheryn Olmos is a Research Assistant at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and a graduate student at the Sociology Research and Practice program at American University.
Edited byErnesto Castañeda, Director, and Emma Wyler, Wilfredo Flores, intern at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab.
Are MS-13, M-18, and Tren de Aragua terrorist organizations? The short answer is no, they are not. They are transnational criminal organizations. El Salvador’s President Bukele and Donald Trump have officially labeled these groups as terrorist organizations, citing their extreme violence and control over some territories. However, these classifications have sparked debate, as their activities are more aligned with organized crime than political terrorism. Making this distinction is crucial given that mislabeling them can lead to misguided policies that fail at curbing their violence.
The 1980s civil wars in Central America forced nearly a million people to flee the U.S. Some immigrants are still forced to leave their countries because of organized crime and gang recruitment. Today most often, some displaced people are victims of gangs, not members or representatives abroad. However, upon originally arriving in Los Angeles, many Central American migrants faced marginalization and sought protection from the gangs present in the areas where they lived and worked. These challenges ultimately contributed to the formation of the present-day MS-13 and M-18 gangs. Many of the members of these new local gangs were incarcerated in Los Angeles prisons alongside members of other gangs, which allowed them to regroup and learn from their rivals. Shortly after the wars, mass deportations from prisons and streets sent MS-13 and M-18 members back to a weakened Central America, where they expanded their networks and influence.
Similarly, El Tren de Aragua (TdR), which originated in the early 2000s in Venezuelan prisons—particularly the Tocorón prison—has expanded across South America. Originally, a prison gang, Tren de Aragua, expanded beyond prison walls to exploit weak governance, connecting criminal networks across South and North America. Furthermore, like MS-13 and M-18, Tren de Aragua is driven by criminal enterprising rather than political ideology. That is, neither group aims to take over state power or remake society in their own image. Rather, they are hyper-focused on generating maximum profits through illicit means while avoiding state interference. They are criminal syndicates with some capacity—though quite limited—to carry out their rackets across borders. They are certainly NOT terrorist entities.
What separates a terrorist organization from a criminal syndicate? While both engage in illicit activities and use violence as a means to an end, it is crucial to distinguish their goals and methods to dismantle them effectively. The primary difference lies in their objectives: terrorist organizations seek political, religious, or ideological change by influencing government policies or societal structures, whereas transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) operate across borders solely for financial gain, without political or ideological motives beyond sowing conditions to maximize profit.
For example, the U.S. government has classified groups like Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia(FARC) and ISIS as terrorist organizations due to their political objectives. FARCS’s history dates back to 1964 when it emerged as a communist insurgency that employed terrorist tactics. Initially formed as a guerilla movement from campesino self-defense groups, whose primary objective was to overthrow the Colombian government. Over the next five decades, FARC waged guerilla warfare by carrying out illicit activities—such as bombing, kidnappings, and assassinations–all in an effort to challenge state authority. Colombia, the U.S., and the European Union designated FARC as a terrorist organization due to their use of political violence.
However, the 2016 peace accords between FARC and the Colombian government led to the successful disarmament. This agreement allowed the group to transition into a political party known as Comunes. Even though some dissident factions still operate, FARC’s official transformation has been a key factor in maintaining long-term stability in Colombia. Recognizing this shift has been crucial in fostering peace and ensuring that former combatants can engage in democratic processes rather than armed conflict.
The contrast between ISIS and FARC highlights the importance of proper classification. FARC has abandoned the characteristics that once classified it as a terrorist organization and instead has evolved into a political entity. ISIS, on the other hand, remains committed to its extremist and political ideology, seeking to overthrow governments through guerrilla warfare and establish a global Islamic caliphate through territorial control and sectarian violence. Addressing the causes behind these organizations is equally crucial. FARC’s transition has allowed Colombia to tackle the drivers that led to its rise in the first place, providing the foundation for long-term stability. When governments misdiagnose the factors driving their emergence, violence continues.
Despite claims that Tren de Aragua serves the Maduro regime, evidence suggests otherwise. The group arose from Venezuela’s weak governance and not from direct state sponsorship. According to Insight Crime, in September 2023, Venezuelan law enforcement raided the Tocorón prison in Aragua state, aiming to “dismantle and put an end to organized crime gangs and other criminal networks operating from the Tocorón Penitentiary.” This operation demonstrates that Tren de Aragua is not a state-sponsored group, nor is it a tool being used by the Venezuelan state to destabilize the region. Its rise—like that of MS-13 and M-18—can be traced back to systemic failures, including poverty, corruption, and forced population displacement. These factors have allowed transnational criminal organizations to flourish across Latin America.
MS-13 and M-18 expanded by exploiting political corruption and institutional weakness in their home countries. Similarly, Tren de Aragua has taken advantage of Venezuela’s economic crises and large emigration to expand into new territories, such as the Darién Gap. Unlike terrorist organizations, these gangs did not emerge to push a political ideology; rather, they have thrived by leveraging corruption and weak law enforcement. In many ways, they are products of the environments that fostered them, growing out of instability rather than ideological ambition. These transnational criminal groups do not engage in violent attacks abroad, targeting governments or aiming to take political power in the United States. That is beyond their purview and capabilities.
Why does the distinction between organized crime and terrorist organizations matter? Although all of these organizations engage in violence and illicit activities, their end goals set them apart: MS-13, M-18, and Tren de Aragua operate for profit, whereas ISIS and others seek to reshape the political landscape of their regions. Properly distinguishing between terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations like MS-13, M-18, and Tren de Aragua is crucial for drafting effective policies and responses to their violence. Mislabeling these groups can lead to inappropriate responses. Applying counterterrorism measures to profit-driven gangs fails to address the root causes for their expansion in the first place. Failing to properly distinguish organized crime from political terrorists leads to failed policies. The misclassification of these groups could destabilize the region by shifting U.S. foreign policy and resources away from where it is truly needed—addressing the drivers of gang-related violence, corruption, and weak governance—toward counterterrorism efforts.
While transnational criminal organizations are heavily involved in drug trafficking, and their violence may create fear among civilians and impact governance, this does not qualify them as terrorist organizations. Their primary objective is financial gain, not advancing an ideological or political agenda. This distinction matters because government responses shape outcomes. If the goal is to curb migration, drug trafficking, or violence, then we need to stop treating criminal organizations like terrorist groups and start addressing the real issues driving their expansion. If the U.S. truly wants to curb migration and secure the southern border, then it must ensure that its classification of these organizations is accurate and aligned with its actual objectives.
Melissa Vasquez is a Graduate Student in the International Affairs and Policy Analysis program at American University and an Intern at the Immigrant Lab.
Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and a Professor at American University
Anthony Fontes is an Associate Professor and ethnographer at American University’s School of International Service.
This piece can be reproduced completely or partially with proper attribution to its author.
AULA Blog 
