All posts tagged Immigration

Why MS-13, M-18, and Tren de Aragua Are Not Terrorist Groups

by Melissa Vasquez, Ernesto Castañeda, and Anthony Fontes

Image of President Trump of the United States and President Bukele of El Salvador meeting, White House, Sep 25 2019, Fliker

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.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on February 20, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Central America, El Salvador, South America, Venezuela
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 20, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/02/20/why-not-terrorist-groups/

Mayor Adams, Don’t Sell Out New York City’s Economy

By Marshall Plane, Ernesto Castañeda

Photo credits to Flickr
Photo credits to Flickr

Days after federal corruption charges against him were dropped, Mayor Eric Adams appears poised to open New York City to President Trump’s mass deportation agenda in what Manhattan’s federal attorney described as a “quid pro quo”. Mr. Adams’ posturing has hinted at this for some time: the mayor has framed the recent influx of asylum-seeking migrants as an economic burden that “will destroy New York City.” “The long-term consequences have yet to materialize of what this crisis will do to our cities,” he told Tucker Carlson on January 22nd.

After crunching the numbers, we agree with Mr. Adams: New York City is just beginning to reap the benefits of this influx of hardworking people. We conservatively estimate that, if their earnings and employment rates are similar to the current undocumented population, the 316,000 asylum seekers who have come here since 2022 will contribute $8.62 billion annually to the city’s economy, a figure greater than the GDP of forty countries. Much of this economic activity will flow to public coffers: the asylum seeker population is projected to pay $942 million more in taxes than they receive in benefits each year. If ICE is allowed to wreak havoc on New York City, all these benefits will be lost.

This is not particularly surprising. Previous waves of immigrants have similarly fled desperate situations, arrived with limited resources, faced nativist backlash, and still become vital contributors to the city’s economy and culture. There’s no reason to believe today’s newcomers should be any different. With New York’s US-born population declining and demand for workers growing fastest in the industries most reliant on immigrant labor, they are arriving at an opportune time.

It’s true that New York City has spent substantial amounts on services for asylum seekers: a combined $5.2 billion in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, with another $4.5 billion budgeted for FY2025. These costs doubtless been have been inflated by Adams’ “emergency” decision to suspend background checks and competitive bidding requirements for contractors providing such services. The Comptroller’s investigation found several egregious examples of overpayment. One contractor received $117/hour for security guards and $201/hour for off-site managers. Despite this waste, spending on asylum seekers made up just 4.2% of the FY2025 budget.

Most importantly, these costs are not the product of an “open border.” Immigrants have been coming to New York City via the border for decades. In fact, the city’s undocumented population was 611,000 in 2012 and fell to 412,000 by 2022. Nor is the scale of the current influx unusual in recent times–during the 1990s, the city’s foreign-born population grew at a higher annual rate than it has during the 2020s.

Instead, the recent difficulty housing asylum seekers is a unique case created by a perfect storm of policies: a political stunt that brought people to cities where they lacked connections; an artificial housing shortage; an already-struggling, poorly run shelter system unequipped to house new arrivals; a lack of legal immigration pathways; and outdated laws that prevent asylum seekers from working.

Each wave of immigration to New York City has been beneficial to both the immigrants themselves and their adopted city. The only difference today is that arcane policies have forced both sides to make major upfront investments before they begin to enjoy those mutual benefits.

Before claiming asylum, people must physically come to the US. For nearly all the asylum seekers we spoke with as part of our ongoing study, this involved taking on substantial debt to finance a deadly, months-long overland journey. This debt can be a major obstacle as people try to establish themselves in New York.

In 2023, John borrowed nearly $30,000 to bring his family of five from Ecuador to the US border. A mechanic by trade, he quickly found work repairing e-bikes at a workshop in Queens, earning $1,200 a week. Yet over half of each paycheck goes to repaying his creditors back home (who have threatened to kill his parents should he miss a payment), leaving him unable to afford rent and trapping his family in the shelter system. He says he’ll have paid off enough debt to move to an apartment in New Jersey in three months.

Lacking a sponsor in the US, crossing the border was John’s only way to come here. Leave aside, for a moment, your beliefs about whether doing so was morally correct. The fact is, he’s here and contributing to our economy. Had he been able to come directly from Quito to New York, his spending power would be going to New York businesses instead of human smugglers.

Another problem: after applying for asylum, people must wait 180 days before receiving a work permit. Unless they have connections to support them, this effectively forces people to live off the state for six months. In practice, our conversations have made clear, it’s often much longer. In 2023, New York City began limiting stays in any one shelter to 60 days, forcing people to shuffle between different facilities. Many migrants are not informed that failing to report this change of address to USCIS within 10 days is a misdemeanor and can delay or derail their ability to get documents.

The experience of Carlos, who we spoke to outside a Manhattan shelter, exemplifies the bureaucratic absurdities that hold migrants back. Bused to NYC in late 2023 as part of Operation Lone Star, he immediately applied for asylum, citing political persecution in Venezuela. While waiting for his work permit, he has bounced between different shelters and worked temporary construction and moving gigs. He says his lack of documentation allowed these employers to exploit him, frequently not paying him in full.

Carlos told us a relative in Oklahoma has found him a job in trucking, his original profession. “The moment my papers arrive, I’m going to Oklahoma,” he says. “They’re waiting on me.” He was supposed to get his work permit months ago but had to restart the process when his address changed. He was most recently told his papers should arrive in 90 days.

The absurdity is infuriating. Due to decades-old laws, people itching to work linger in shelters against their wishes and at great financial cost, while crucial jobs across the country remain unfilled. The Independent Budget Office estimates the cost of missed work authorizations for asylum seekers at up to $1 billion in 2024 alone.

Even so, with US-born workers rapidly aging, rising immigration has done much to ease post-pandemic labor shortages, helping reduce inflation while maintaining economic growth. And asylum seekers are quietly integrating into the city’s economy. Of the 225,000 migrants who have passed through the shelter system, over 170,000 (77%) have moved out, and the number remaining in city care continues to dwindle.

Many interviewees, having recently gotten their work permits and found jobs after a long ordeal, expressed excitement to begin living independently and working towards the various dreams that kept them going through sweltering jungles and deserts. As asylum seekers increasingly fill the jobs that keep New York’s service-based economy moving, the investments made by both sides finally appear to be paying off. For deportations to derail asylum seekers’ budding lives as New Yorkers would be a human tragedy and an economic catastrophe

Marshall Plane is a Research Assistant at The Immigration Lab.

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

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on February 19, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Immigration, United States
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 19, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/02/19/dont-sell-out-new-york-citys/

New York City’s Shift To The Right

By Caryalyn Jean

One surprising trend that emerged from the 2024 elections was New York City’s subtle shift to the right. Although the overall results of how each of the five boroughs that make up the city did not change, Trump gained 30% of the overall votes in the 2024 election as opposed to 19% in 2016. There were significant shifts in working-class neighborhoods in the Bronx and Queens. One reason for this may have been the high cost of living in New York and believing that Trump would bring prices down. Nonetheless, we must consider xenophobic messaging on both sides of the political aisle to get the full picture.

Since the initial arrival to of busses with immigrants and asylum seekers from Texas and Arizona to New York City, harmful rhetoric about them has had real-life implications. For instance, in late January 2024 reporting began surrounding an altercation which took place in Times Square between NYPD and a group of migrants. Former Police Commissioner Edward Caban responded to the incident with, “a wave of migrant crime has washed over our city.”  Mayor Eric Adams described the incident as “an attack on the foundation of our symbol of safety.” Despite body cam footage released just a few days after the initial reporting, both the media and residents alike repeated the messaging purported by Eric Adams and the NYPD Residents sharing the Eric Adams administration’s belief that migrants’ presence is correlated to an increase in crime in the city is reflected in the results of May 2024 poll. Of the 974 eligible New York City voters surveyed, “over 70 percent blamed migrants in the city for the current crime rate, with 41 percent saying immigration is having a ‘significant’ impact and 31 percent saying a ‘fair amount’ of impact.” 

New Yorker’s shift to the right is not limited to the presidential election. Another election result that may appear surprising to some is Republican Stephan Chan’s New York State Senate District 17 win, beating incumbent Iwen Chu. In 2020, New York State underwent a redistricting cycle, and Iwen Chu was the first representative of the newly formed district and served as representation for the growing Asian population in the area. Reporter Michael Lange described Chu’s loss as the solidification of “the Chinese Republican realignment in Southern Brooklyn.” On his campaign website, Stephan Chan emphasized being an immigrant from Hong Kong, a long time Bensonhurst resident, his law enforcement background, and his strong family ties. He also emphasizes his opposition of “wasteful spending of our tax dollars” juxtaposed to photo of himself at a protest opposing the building of a homeless shelter in Gravesend. Unsurprisingly, Chan’s opposition is not limited to homeless shelters. In a campaign ad, a supporter states, “he won’t hand out freebies to migrants while we pay the price.” This reflects not only Chan’s stance on spending on resources for migrants, but of some New Yorkers who often feel like New York City provides recently arrived migrants with services that long-time New Yorkers do not have access to.

On the national level, the growing anti-immigrant sentiment can be seen in how New York’s Congresspeople voted on the Lanken-Riley Act. This bill will allow the Department of Homeland security to detain undocumented immigrants who have been accused of burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting. It also allows for states to sue the federal government for “decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.” Opponents of the bill are concerned about the erosion of due process for those accused of crimes and the lack of funding that is required to implement it. On January 23, 2025, the bill passed 263 to 156, with 6 out of 17 New York House members representing Downstate New York voting “Yea.” The bill was signed by President Trump on January 29, 2025. 

These election results amongst other things have already caused great concern around the upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial races. Ironically, despite Adam’s law and order campaign, he is in legal trouble. Likewise, since fall 2024, New Yorkers have been left many questions. During a November 6, 2024, news conference, Eric Adams was asked about his administration’s plans to cooperate with Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts. In reply, Adams stated “We cannot add to the anxiety and fear that people are experiencing.”  The following week, Adams affirmed New York City’s sanctuary city status but stated that he believed that laws surrounding local law enforcement’s cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be changed. Adams was also present as Trump’s inauguration and cancelled his attendance at various Martin Luther King Day celebrations to many New Yorker’s dismay. His reluctance to outright denounce Trump’s stance on immigration and recent ICE raids has caused uneasiness for immigrant advocacy groups within the city and causes further speculation that Adam’s refusal to publicly critique Trump is for his own personal gain. Democrats have long relied on New York City to keep New York State blue but shifts to the right in New York City may lead to the party losing its stronghold in the country.

Caryalyn Jean, Sociology Research and Practice MA (SORP) Student at American University

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on February 6, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Immigration, North America, United States
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 6, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/02/06/new-york-shift-to-the-right/

Migrante vs. inmigrante: 10 términos de la política migratoria de Estados Unidos que debes conocer

Photo cerdits to Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Photo cerdits to Brandon Bell/Getty Images

ORLANDO, Florida.- La política migratoria en Estados Unidos se encuentra en el foco de la atención tras las recientes órdenes ejecutivas firmadas por el presidente Donald Trump en los primeros días de su mandato. Entre las medidas, se encuentran restricciones temporales para refugiados, la limitación de solicitudes de asilo en la frontera y la polémica orden para negar certificados de nacimiento a hijos de padres sin estatus migratorio regular.

Estos movimientos han generado demandas en 18 estados, argumentando que violan el derecho de ciudadanía por nacimiento, protegido por la 14.ª Enmienda de la Constitución.

1. Migrante

Un migrante es cualquier persona que se traslada lejos de su lugar de origen, ya sea dentro de su país o al extranjero. Algunos se ven forzados a moverse por violencia o desastres naturales, mientras que otros migran por razones económicas o familiares. Este término incluye tanto a quienes cruzan fronteras de manera documentada como no documentada.

2. Inmigrante

El inmigrante es un migrante que se establece en un país diferente al de su nacimiento. En Estados Unidos, los inmigrantes pueden tener diferentes estatus legales, desde la residencia permanente (Green Card) hasta visas temporales, como las de trabajo (H-1B) o estudio (F-1). También hay visas humanitarias, como la T para víctimas de tráfico humano y la U para víctimas de crímenes graves.

3. Inmigrante indocumentado o irregular

Este término engloba a personas que ingresan o permanecen en un país sin autorización legal. Algunos llegaron con visas que vencieron, mientras que otros cruzaron sin documentos. En Estados Unidos muchos indocumentados trabajan y pagan impuestos, aunque no reciben beneficios de seguridad social.

4. Solicitante de asilo

Es alguien que pide protección al llegar a un puerto de entrada o dentro del país, alegando peligro en su nación de origen por persecución política, religiosa, étnica o de otro tipo. El proceso puede tomar años y requiere pruebas contundentes.

5. Refugiado

Un refugiado solicita protección desde el extranjero antes de ingresar a Estados Unidos, generalmente escapando de conflictos armados o persecución. Una vez en el país, pueden trabajar legalmente y, al cabo de un año, solicitar la residencia permanente.

6. Niños no acompañados

Se refiere a menores que cruzan la frontera sin un tutor legal. Según las leyes estadounidenses, pueden permanecer en el país y buscar estatus legal, generalmente bajo el cuidado de familiares ya residentes.

7. Separación familiar

Esta práctica polémica, intensificada durante el primer mandato de Trump, consiste en separar a padres migrantes de sus hijos al cruzar la frontera. Aunque la administración Biden intentó reunificar familias, cientos de niños aún están separados de sus padres.

8. Detención migratoria

Es la detención de inmigrantes en centros similares a cárceles, gestionados por el gobierno o empresas privadas, mientras esperan audiencias o deportaciones. Estas condiciones han sido criticadas por su dureza, incluyendo el uso de “hieleras” con temperaturas extremadamente bajas.

9. Coyote

Es el término utilizado para describir a los guías que, a cambio de dinero, ayudan a migrantes a cruzar fronteras de manera clandestina. Esta actividad se ha vuelto más costosa y peligrosa debido al endurecimiento de las políticas fronterizas.

10. Jugadores clave del gobierno

La política migratoria en EE. UU. involucra varias agencias: el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS), la Patrulla Fronteriza (CBP), Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) y el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), que asiste a menores no acompañados.
Entender estos términos humaniza a las personas detrás de las estadísticas. En tiempos de políticas migratorias restrictivas, la empatía y el conocimiento son herramientas esenciales para abordar este tema con sensibilidad.

Con información de AP.

Credit to Univision for translation

Original Post

https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-migrant-what-is-ice-10-terms-to-help-you-understand-the-debate-over-immigration-247317

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

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

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 29, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in United States
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 29, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/01/29/migrante-vs-inmigrante-10-terminos-de-la-politica-migratoria-de-estados-unidos-que-debes-conocer/

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

By Ernesto Castañeda, Daniel Jenks

President Donald Trump aims to upend the immigration system in the United States in his first few days in office. On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed various executive orders that temporarily prevent refugees from coming to the U.S. and block immigrants from applying for asylum at a U.S. border, among other measures.

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

We are scholars of immigration who closely follow public discussions about immigration policy, trends and terminology. Understanding the many different immigration terms – some technical, some not – can help people better understand immigration news. While not an exhaustive list, here are 10 important terms to know:

1. Migrant

A migrant is a person who moves from their place of birth to another location relatively far away. There are different words used to describe migrants and their particular circumstances. Internally displaced people, for example, means people who are forced to move within their own country because of violence, natural disasters and other reasons.

International migrants move from one country to another, sometimes without the legal authorization to enter or stay in another country. There are also seasonal or circular migrants, who often move back and forth between different places.

Between 30% and 60% of all migrants eventually return to their birth countries.

There is not much difference in why people decide to migrate within their own country or internationally, with or without the legal permission to do so. But it is easier for people from certain countries to move than from others.

2. Immigrants

The terms immigrants and migrants are often used interchangeably. Migration indicates movement in general. Immigration is the word used to describe the process of a non-citizen settling in another country. Immigrants have a wide range of legal statuses.

An immigrant in the U.S. might have a green card or a permanent resident card – a legal authorization that gives the person the legal right to stay and work in the U.S. and to apply for citizenship after a few years.

An immigrant with a T visa is a foreigner who is allowed to stay in the U.S. for up to four years because they are victims of human or sex trafficking. Similarly, an immigrant with a U visa is the victim of serious crimes and can stay in the U.S. for up to four years, and then apply for a Green Card.

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

Many international students in higher education have an F-1 visa. They must return to their country of birth soon after they graduate, unless they are sponsored by a U.S. employer, enroll in another educational program, or marry a U.S. citizen. The stay can be extended for one or two years, depending on the field of study.

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

3. Undocumented Immigrants, Unauthorized Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants

These three charged political terms refer to the same situation: migrants who enter or remain in the country without the proper legal paperwork. People in this category also include those who come to the U.S. with a visa and overstay its permitted duration.

Some of these immigrants work for cash that is not taxed. Most work with fake Social Security numbers, pay taxes and contribute to Social Security funds without receiving money after retirement.

Immigrants without legal authorization to be in the U.S. spent more than US$254 billion in 2022.

4. Asylum Seekers

An asylum seeker is a person who arrives at a U.S. port of entry – via an airport or a border crossing – and asks for protection because they fear returning to their home country. An immigrant living in the U.S. for up to one year can also apply for asylum.

Asylum seekers can legally stay temporarily in the U.S. while they wait to bring their case to an immigration judge. The process typically takes years.

Someone is eligible for asylum if they can show proof of persecution because of their political affiliation, religion, ethnic group, minority status, or belonging to a targeted group. Many others feel they need to leave their countries because of threats of violence or abusive relationships, among other dangerous circumstances.

A judge will eventually decide whether a person’s fear is with merit and can stay in the country.

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

5. Refugees

Refugees are similar to asylum seekers, but they apply to resettle in the U.S. while they remain abroad. Refugees are often escaping conflict.

The Biden administration had a cap of admitting up to 125,000 refugees a year.

Refugees can legally work in the U.S. as soon as they arrive and can apply for a green card one year later. Research shows that refugees become self-sufficient soon after they settle in the country and are net-positive for the country’s economy through the federal taxes they pay.

6. Unaccompanied Children

This is a U.S. government classification for migrant children who enter the U.S. without a parent or guardian, and without proper documentation or the legal status to be in the country. Because they are minors, they are allowed to enter the country and apply for the right to stay. Most often, they have relatives already in the country, who assume the role of financial and legal sponsors.

7. Family Separation

This refers to a government policy of separating detained migrant parents or guardians from the children they are responsible for an traveling with as a family unit. The first Trump administration separated families arriving at the border as part of an attempt to reduce immigration.

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

Legal migration systems that lack avenues for immigrants who work in manual labor to move with their families, and deportations, both also create family separations.

8. Immigration Detention

Immigration detention refers to the U.S. government apprehending immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization and holding them in centers that are run similar to prisons. Some of these centers are run by the government, and others are outsourced to private companies.

When a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official apprehends an immigrant, they are often first brought to a building where they are placed in what many call a hielera, which means icebox or freezer in Spanish. This refers to cells, cages or rooms where the government keeps immigrants at very low temperatures with foil blankets and without warm clothing.

Immigrants might then be quickly deported or otherwise released in the country while they await a court date for an asylum case. Other immigrants who are awaiting deportation or a court date will be placed in an immigration detention center. Some must post bond to be released while awaiting trial.

9. Coyote

A coyote is the Spanish word for a guide who is paid by migrants and asylum seekers to take them to their destination, undetected by law enforcement. Coyotes used to be trusted by the migrants they were helping cross into the country. As the U.S. has tried to make it harder to enter illegally, the business of taking people to and across the U.S.-Mexico border unseen has become more expensive and dangerous.

10. The Alphabet Soup of Government Players

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is a law enforcement agency created after 9/11. It includes a number of agencies that focus on immigration.

These include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, an agency that is in charge of collecting import duties, passport and document controls at airports, ports, and official points of entry along the border.

The Border Patrol is a federal law enforcing agency under CBP in charge of patrolling and securing U.S. borders and ports.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is a branch of DHS that works within the U.S., within its borders, focusing on detaining and deporting immigrants.

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

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

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

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

1 Comment
by clalsstaff on January 23, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 23, 2025

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

Immigrants are not a Threat

Neither Walls nor Deportations Can Stop Mobility and the Search for Asylum and Shelter 

by Ernesto Castañeda

Question by Patricia Caro: Your book with Carina Cione, “Immigration Realities,”contradicts many of the ideas circulating about immigrants. Did you feel like it was time to write a book like this?

Answer by Ernesto Castañeda: Yes, the lies about migration have been going on for many years, but Trump placed immigration as the number one issue of his campaign, and he has spread many falsehoods. The public has many misunderstandings about who immigrants are, why they come, and what are the real economic, social, and cultural effects of immigration.

Q. What do you think is the stereotype about immigrants that has caused the most damage?

A. That immigrants are a threat. In many countries, people think that immigrants are taking jobs and houses from the locals. When moving to a new place, it is true that they need a job, but they also pay rent and thus generate more economic wealth. Also, as they are new, they are more likely to create innovations, start businesses, and generate more jobs for locals hiring them directly or through the goods and services they need. But that is something that is not visible to everyone, it is not immediate, and people find it very hard to imagine something they don’t see. However, research and the data clearly show that immigrants and refugees are net contributions in terms of fiscal taxes, economic output, as well as social, intellectual, culinary, and cultural contributions.

The other dangerous myth is that immigrants are a cultural threat. That, if they hear you speaking Spanish, it is because you may not speak English. But many people are bilingual. American culture can be respected and understood very well without immigrants having to forget their own culture. Teachers and administrators in public schools worry when newcomers who do not speak Spanish arrive, but young immigrants pick up English relatively quickly. So do their parents, if they have the time to learn or access to programs to help them do so. History and social science research show clearly that the children and grandchildren of immigrants are culturally indistinguishable from the locals’ descendants. We see this itself with Donald Trump. His paternal grandfather was an immigrant born in Germany, his mom was an immigrant born in Scotland and a native Gaelic speaker, and now DJT thinks he’s the most American of all.

Q. In your book, “Immigration Realities,” you argue that the border area is one of the safest places. It is surprising because the authorities denounce the insecurity of the area.

A. Yes, I was surprised, too. Northern Mexico has become dangerous in the last two decades. Many people think that the border region —on the U.S. side— is dangerous because of the immigrants who arrive, but as we did research for years for this chapter, we found that for an American citizen, especially middle-class white men, it is one of the safest places in the country. However, if you are a newly arrived immigrant, woman, LGBTQ, undocumented, of Indigenous origin, or someone who does not speak Spanish, you may indeed lose your life in the area. For an average citizen, being in El Paso, San Diego, Arizona, or any city, town, or border state, is very safe, and official data shows that crime rates are among the lowest in the United States. The immigrant who arrives at the border wall, asks for asylum, surrenders to the authorities. Those who have escaped the violence of their countries or come looking for work and try to pass through the desert without being arrested or found may indeed die trying. Nonetheless, there are no cases of someone who has committed a terrorist act within the United States who has crossed undocumented across the border with Mexico. The main concern is political violence among citizens and domestic terrorism.

Q. Is there a migration crisis or not?

A. No, no, no. The focus must be on crises abroad. There are crises in Haiti and Venezuela. An invasion of Ukraine, and a civil war ending in Syria. There are wars and tragedies in those and other countries. The displacement of Ukrainian women and children to save their own lives is a humanitarian problem but the main issue is the continued bombing of cities. Conflict-related displacement is not a permanent state. E.g., now with the fall of Assad, we are seeing that many Syrians immediately are returning home. More will do so if things get stabilized there. If Russia ended the war tomorrow, Ukrainians would look forward to returning if their houses were still standing or if they could afford to rebuild. So, it is not a migration crisis first and foremost; it is an armed conflict, it is a genocide, a civil war, a famine, or climate change, that makes people move. Some say people go to other countries because they are rich, but another way of seeing it is that rich countries are rich because they have relatively a lot of migration.

Japan and China are in relative economic decline because of population decline and too little immigration. Japan does not find a way to attract international people, because it has no tradition nor a good record of receiving immigrants. America has been very successful in turning into American people coming from around the world, something that Trump wants to change. Nevertheless, these trends and traditions are difficult to do away with. But if successful, it would be a real decline for the American economy. It is a wish of MAGA people, but if it comes true, it is not going to make America Great Again, it is going to create some of the weakest America in history.

This interview is an edited and extended translation of the interview with Patricia Caro for El País U.S. Spanish edition published here on January 1, 2025.

You can purchase the book here.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 19, 2025  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 19, 2025

https://aulablog.net/2025/01/19/immigrants-are-not-a-threat/

Immigration Realities

Book Review

by Blogger Ben from ACEMAXX Analytics

It seems that the modern world is drowning in crises.

Imperialism, decolonization, violence, natural disasters, instability, and poverty have been uprooting people around the world for thousands of years.

Migration is part of human history. But “Migration” is a highly politicized theme.

Refugees are people who are facing problems and do not fundamentally pose a problem themselves.

A serious, systemic problem related to expulsion is the legacy of imperialism and current neo-colonial relations.

Ernesto Castañeda and Carina Cione: Immigration Realities – Challenging Common Misperceptions, Columbia University Press, Nov 2024.

According to the UNHCR, the real crisis is that a few countries have “a disproportionate responsibility for taking newcomers,” and not there is a relatively disproportionate number of arrivals:

Politicians and journalists speak of “immigrant and refugee crises,” but the authors explain why “we see it as a political crisis, not a crisis of migration.”

The constant production of refugee crises influences the public’s political and social views about migration.

“Migration cannot be “solved” because it is a timeless and constantly fluctuating phenomenon.”

It is an open secret that the strong opinions that people often have are based on idiosyncratic personal experiences, prejudiced views, and false assumptions spread by politicians and mainstream media.

However, the average citizen often does not have all the facts at hand to look at the topic of migration from an objective yet sensitive perspective – and cannot do so.

The authors attach great importance to summarizing academic literature to help promote public understanding of today’s international migration.

The recent book summarizes relevant research results on common myths for readers who are not familiar with contemporary migration or border studies.

In other words, the authors present the relevant scientific research, which is often closed behind paywalls, research specialization, and subject-specific jargon so that most readers find it awkward and difficult to understand. This book is clearly aimed at the general public.

Each chapter revolves around a certain misunderstanding and can be read as an independent work or together with the others. The individual chapters contain relevant and up-to-date knowledge about the realities of migration, which is presented in such a way that it is also appealing and accessible to non-professionals.

Ernesto Castañeda and Carina Cione distinguish how some rhetoric accuses, patronizes, and criminalizes refugees, which, in connection with xenophobia, stereotypes, and fear-mongering, support the myth of a crisis.

A refugee is defined as someone who has left his home country and cannot return because he has a reasonable fear of violence and/or persecution due to his identity or political conviction.

The word has two meanings: a “legal meaning” that describes a person entitled to asylum under international law, and a “colloquial meaning” that describes a person who has fled their homeland. The criteria for international recognition as a refugee are strict, and other displaced people can be wrongly referred to as refugees.Neo-colonialism under the auspices of neoliberal capitalism, for example, contributed to the fact that entire regions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which were first described as “the third world” and then now the “Global South,” because they were oppressed in the past and the present, and not simply because of their low national income or the degree of integration into international trade.

Every “refugee crisis” is a socially constructed term that distracts from the real problem: the high-income and imperialist countries do not take responsibility for their violent actions because they benefit from the equally violent postcolonial world order.

The current neo-colonial conditions are undoubtedly part of the neoliberal driven dismantling of the welfare state, which leads to a lack of state programs for the public and the acceptance of tax cuts for the rich.

Globalization and migration are presented as two sides of the same coin, but in reality, they are very different phenomena – economic globalization and migration are not causal since migration tendencies do not necessarily agree with trade trends: periods of expanding international trade do not always correlate with migration waves or vice versa.

The authors also clarify usual terms such as “integration, assimilation, and acculturation.” Yours truly, for example, has so far preferred the term “acclimatization” to “assimilation” and “integration.”

According to Ernesto Castañeda and Carina Cione, comprehensive integration is a social integration; it does not mean cultural assimilation to the morals of the dominant group, but rather presupposes certain negotiations, reciprocal communication, and mutual influence.

Integration is often mistakenly equated with assimilation and acculturation. However, these are different concepts.

Acculturation refers to the process of getting to know the culture of the new place of residence and the achievement of a fluid cultural language. Immigrants can acculturate while maintaining many of their native traditions and culture.

In the spirit of Ernesto Castañeda’s previous work, social integration means equality and equal opportunities while maintaining cultural differences.

Assimilation is based on intolerance towards identities that deviate from the dominant and often Eurocentric culture.

Migration is an inherent human phenomenon that is subject to changes that are influenced by local and national political, economic, and social conditions. Data relating to the overall world population does not allow the conclusion that globalization is driving migration forward.

Research refutes widespread misconceptions about immigration. In fact, only 3.5% of the world’s population live in a country other than the one in which they were born.

Worldwide, the percentage of people who change residences due to war, political or religious persecution, poverty, or lack of opportunity is not as high as ever before and is not unmanageable for host countries.

Migration is a geographical and social relocation process. Subjective affiliation also depends on the objective conditions, including the absorption capacity of the new environment and the attitude of the locals towards immigrant groups.

In the US, for example, there is still no national integration program specifically designed to support immigrant integration. Migrants are expected to go through this process alone.

In sum, “Immigration Realities” is an indispensable masterpiece of intellectual honesty.

Immigration Realities – Challenging Common Misperceptions, by Ernesto Castañeda and Carina Cione – Columbia University Press, Nov 2024.

Originally published in German in ACEMAXX-ANALYTICS’s Newsletter!

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on December 15, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on December 15, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/12/15/immigration-realities/

The Taxing Debate

The Taxing Debate on Migration in the U.S.

By Mary Capone

November 19, 2024

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

Polls from PBS NewsHour, 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graph from the American Immigration Council (2016).

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Immigration
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 19, 2024

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

2024 Elections

Myths about the Causes Behind the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Results

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 16, 2024

I was wrong about Harris winning. Concerns about the future of democracy were mainly an issue for around 32% of those who voted for Democrats (according to NBC exit polls). The uncommitted, abstainers, and disengaged affected turnout. Both candidates were voted by a diverse electorate. As I wrote before the election, “An unintended effect of Trump’s hate speech has created a certain increase in support among some Black, Latino, and Asian voters.” This was not enough in itself for Trump to win, but it added to the lead among White voters. What I wrote about the rightward shift of the Latino vote [here, here, and here] holds true.

Cable news coverage across the board has obsessed with “immigration” and “the economy” being the main concerns of the electorate and that public opinion favors Trump to handle them. But in polls and exit polls, these were the main issues for less than half of the electorate, and they were the main issues for Republican respondents, who naturally favor Trump’s solutions in these areas.

In terms of the “economy,” members of union households voted slightly more for Democrats (53%) than non-union households (47%). The voting split was not that different across income brackets. Even if unemployment is low, and wage and economic growth rates are positive and steady, with a big improvement from 2020, still many minimum-wage earners and the lower middle class are no longer happy with the economic status quo, as I wrote here.

 The biggest errors in the 2024 election coverage have been the out-of-proportion focus on the economy and immigration as the biggest concerns of all voters when, indeed, these complaints are not fully based on reality and are mainly coming from Republican-leaning voters. But the exaggeration around immigrants did not cost Trump the election and probably reinforced his dog whistles and helped in an election against a Black female opponent. Her identity was my major question here about whether Nikki Haley supporters, independents, and enough White men without a college education could vote and actively campaign for Harris.

The Harris campaign was strong, but its short duration meant that many voters did not feel like they knew her well enough. The campaign was careful to stick to the center and even to appeal to Republicans. As in 2016, in 2024, more White women supported Trump than the female candidate. In some states, they voted for Trump and still voted for some protections for abortion in certain cases.

Trump did not win because of the politicization of immigration. One reason for this is that only in a few polls did “immigration” rank as the main concern for over 50% of likely voters. Only a minority said they would vote for a presidential candidate solely on that issue. Those who did were over 70% Republican across polls. There was a similar dynamic regarding “economics.” It was misleading, both during the campaign and after the election, to assert that the primary concerns of the electorate are the economy and immigration. For example, an exit poll from ten key states conducted by NBC shows that only 11% of the electorate saw immigration as the issue that “mattered most” for their vote (when given only five possible issues), and of those voters, 90% of them were Republican.

A different response to that poll sheds further light on the polarization along party lines regarding immigration policy: 75% of Democrats (and 56% of respondents overall) support offering a chance for undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status. In contrast, 87% of Republicans (40% of respondents overall) favor deportation.

Immigration is not the weakness for Democrats that many make it to be. Still, the Harris campaign was hesitant to discuss immigration or border issues in detail. This is largely due to the narrative among mainstream media pundits and consultants, who believe that Trump’s “strengths” lie in the economy and immigration, as these same polls indicated that voters trusted Trump slightly more on these issues. However, this average was significantly impacted by Republican respondents, and the headlines failed to mention that respondents across party identification trusted Harris more on most other issues. Regardless of rhetoric or immigration policies presented by the Democrats (whether it was the bipartisan Senate deal or restriction on asylum seeking at the border), Trump supporters were always going to vote for Trump. As a result, the Harris campaign could have taken a stronger stance against the misinformation about immigrants that the Trump campaign consistently spread and that many others amplified.

The MAGA base cannot be swayed by facts about the issue because they use the term “immigration” as code to promote a White Christian Ethnostate. This goal was said or implied by Trump and his surrogates and is part of Project 2025. Trump’s largest base of support was White men (60%), white people who never attended college 66%), and especially White Protestants/Christians (72%). Many understood Trump to be the White Christian Nationalist Candidate on the presidential ballot.

What Does This All Mean for Immigration Scholars?

My point above indicates that we need to research immigration, racialization, and the politicization of religion in tandem. These processes are linked to each other by right-wing ideologues. Many of us look at immigration; some of us are starting to look again at the relationship between immigration policies and race, and key sociologists have coined and looked at the rise of White Christian Nationalism.

There is much misinformation about immigration trends and processes, and as a community, we have much to offer. Moderates and independents are open to learning more about immigration, and Democratic-leaning voters and spokespeople need more fact-based talking points. For this reason, Carina Cione and I recently published the book “Immigration Realities: Challenging Common Misperceptions” (Columbia University Press 2024). This work condenses years of research on immigration, making it accessible for journalists, policymakers, students, and the public who want to access social science without facing paywalls or complicated jargon.

However, to be realistic, few people read books, much less academic books. Professors are less likely to assign books than before. Thus, to reach a wider audience, we have to write accessible pieces like op-eds, blogs, and newsletters and talk to the media. I encourage all of you to do so more often. If approached, agree to share your insights. It’s important that people learn about our research findings to help shift the negative and inaccurate stereotypes about immigrants.

As we write and read books about recent immigrants, the immigrant rights movement, Dreamers, and similar topics, we tend to focus on immigrants who are left-leaning, progressive, and activists themselves. Some of us often assume that an increase in immigrants and children of immigrants would lead to a shift towards more liberal views among the electorate. This last election puts that assumption partly into question, but what does this mean for immigration studies? As we have collectively written about, immigrants adapt, acculturate, and become distinct from those in their countries of origin. Over time and across generations, many immigrants become culturally like Americans. This means that, eventually, the public opinion of immigrants tends to align with the national average and those of their neighbors and social circles. In a country where around half of the electorate leans Republican, it is likely that around half of Latinos, Asians, and other immigrant groups, particularly those in the third generation, would do the same —whether we like it or not. This is indeed evidence of integration and assimilation. Their voting patterns will increasingly be influenced by education levels, gender, geographic location, and religion, as they do for White Americans.  

Prices have gone up around the world, the working class is under large pressure, and housing is scarce. There is much conflict-driven immigration around the world. There is not a federally financed emergency shelter and welcome system in the U.S. similar to that used for refugees. The American immigration legal system is antiquated and inadequate. These are issues that must be addressed by Congress. It is hard for non-specialists to understand how all the pieces are connected, and it is easy for politicians to point to real images of lines at the border, asylum-seekers sleeping in the streets, or outside of shelters and hotels in U.S. cities to say that these human beings in need will lead to local fiscal crises. In a forthcoming report, we show how that is not the case.

To conclude, the results of this election were not determined by immigration policies or the misinformation around it. However, to animate its base with racist dog whistles, Trump vilified, scapegoated, and spread lies about immigrants and minorities. We need to combat these misconceptions. While naturalized citizens and U.S.-born Latino votes did not determine the election outcome, they were used to polarize the electorate, painting Haitians and Latino men as dangerous criminals. In response, some Latinos themselves spread hate speech as a way to pass and protect themselves.

As we have documented well in sociology, many individuals draw symbolic boundaries, try to create distinctions, and avoid racialization and exclusion by trying to pass as White or White-adjacent in response to the stigmatization of whole categorical groups. Individuals in tenuous situations understand that adopting majority opinions and beliefs may be a survival strategy. This is caused by racism. We have collectively documented cases like this for a long time. However, among the public, there is a lack of understanding (even among immigrants, their children, and grandchildren) about immigration history and the common exclusion of newcomers. New immigrant groups are often framed as unassimilable, and once they do, many descendants of those groups repeat the pattern and exclude those who come after them.

Our research is more relevant than ever as we teach our students, readers, and the public about the many positive outcomes brought about by immigration in the long term and about how immigration status does not equal morality. It is not that individuals want to be undocumented, but many find themselves in that situation amidst strong labor demand in the U.S., a lack of legal pathways for many, as well as armed conflicts, and economic and political crises abroad.

Ernesto Castañeda is a Full Professor of Sociology at American University and Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. Among his latest books, he published with Daniel Jenks, “Reunited: Family Separation and Central American Youth Migration” (Russell Sage Foundation 2024).

A shorter version of this text was written for the newsletter of the International Migration Section of the American Sociological Association.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 16, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Immigration
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 16, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/11/16/2024-elections/

Kamala Will Win

This Is Why Kamala Harris Will Win

By Ernesto Castañeda

November 5, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 5, 2024

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

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »