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
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.
President Donald Trump aims to upend the immigration system in the United States in his first few days in office. On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signedvarious executive ordersthat temporarily prevent refugees from coming to the U.S. and block immigrants from applying for asylum at a U.S. border, among other measures.
We arescholarsofimmigrationwho closely followpublic discussionsabout immigrationpolicy, trends and terminology. Understanding the many different immigration terms – some technical, some not – can help people better understand immigration news. While not an exhaustive list, here are 10 important terms to know:
1. Migrant
A migrant is a person who moves from their place of birth to another location relatively far away. There are different words used to describe migrants and their particular circumstances. Internally displaced people, for example, means people who are forced to move within their own country because of violence, natural disasters and other reasons.
International migrants move from one country to another, sometimes without the legal authorization to enter or stay in another country. There are also seasonal or circular migrants, who often move back and forth between different places.
Between 30% and 60% of all migrants eventually return to their birth countries.
There is not much difference in why people decide to migrate within their own country or internationally, with or without the legal permission to do so. But it is easier for people from certain countries to move than from others.
2. Immigrants
The terms immigrants and migrants are often used interchangeably. Migration indicates movement in general. Immigration is the word used to describe the process of a non-citizen settling in another country. Immigrants have a wide range of legal statuses.
An immigrant in the U.S. might have a green card or a permanent resident card – a legal authorization that gives the person the legal right to stay and work in the U.S. and to apply for citizenship after a few years.
An immigrant with a T visa is a foreigner who is allowed to stay in the U.S. for up to four years because they are victims of human or sex trafficking. Similarly, an immigrant with a U visa is the victim of serious crimes and can stay in the U.S. for up to four years, and then apply for a Green Card.
Many international students in higher education have an F-1 visa. They must return to their country of birth soon after they graduate, unless they are sponsored by a U.S. employer, enroll in another educational program, or marry a U.S. citizen. The stay can be extended for one or two years, depending on the field of study.
Photo cerdits to Brandon Bell/Getty Images
3. Undocumented Immigrants, Unauthorized Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants
These three charged political terms refer to the same situation: migrants who enter or remain in the country without the proper legal paperwork. People in this category also include those who come to the U.S. with a visa and overstay its permitted duration.
Some of these immigrants work for cash that is not taxed. Most work with fake Social Security numbers, pay taxes and contribute to Social Security funds without receiving money after retirement.
Immigrants without legal authorization to be in the U.S. spent more than US$254 billion in 2022.
4. Asylum Seekers
An asylum seeker is a person who arrives at a U.S. port of entry – via an airport or a border crossing – and asks for protection because they fear returning to their home country. An immigrant living in the U.S. for up to one year can also apply for asylum.
Asylum seekers can legally stay temporarily in the U.S. while they wait to bring their case to an immigration judge. The process typically takes years.
Someone is eligible for asylum if they can show proof of persecution because of their political affiliation, religion, ethnic group, minority status, or belonging to a targeted group. Many others feel they need to leave their countries because of threats of violence or abusive relationships, among other dangerous circumstances.
A judge will eventually decide whether a person’s fear is with merit and can stay in the country.
Photo cerdits to Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
5. Refugees
Refugees are similar to asylum seekers, but they apply to resettle in the U.S. while they remain abroad. Refugees are often escaping conflict.
The Biden administration had a cap of admitting up to 125,000 refugees a year.
Refugees can legally work in the U.S. as soon as they arrive and can apply for a green card one year later. Research shows that refugees become self-sufficient soon after they settle in the country and are net-positive for the country’s economy through the federal taxes they pay.
6. Unaccompanied Children
This is a U.S. government classification for migrant children who enter the U.S. without a parent or guardian, and without proper documentation or the legal status to be in the country. Because they are minors, they are allowed to enter the country and apply for the right to stay. Most often, they have relatives already in the country, who assume the role of financial and legal sponsors.
7. Family Separation
This refers to a government policy of separating detained migrant parents or guardians from the children they are responsible for an traveling with as a family unit. The first Trump administration separated families arriving at the border as part of an attempt to reduce immigration.
Legal migration systems that lack avenues for immigrants who work in manual labor to move with their families, and deportations, both also create family separations.
8. Immigration Detention
Immigration detention refers to the U.S. government apprehending immigrants who are in the U.S. without authorization and holding them in centers that are run similar to prisons. Some of these centers are run by the government, and others are outsourced to private companies.
When a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official apprehends an immigrant, they are often first brought to a building where they are placed in what many call a hielera, which means icebox or freezer in Spanish. This refers to cells, cages or rooms where the government keeps immigrants at very low temperatures with foil blankets and without warm clothing.
Immigrants might then be quickly deported or otherwise released in the country while they await a court date for an asylum case. Other immigrants who are awaiting deportation or a court date will be placed in an immigration detention center. Some must post bond to be released while awaiting trial.
9. Coyote
A coyote is the Spanish word for a guide who is paid by migrants and asylum seekers to take them to their destination, undetected by law enforcement. Coyotes used to be trusted by the migrantsthey were helping cross into the country. As the U.S. has tried to make it harder to enter illegally, the business of taking people to and across the U.S.-Mexico border unseen has become more expensive and dangerous.
10. The Alphabet Soup of Government Players
The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is a law enforcement agency created after 9/11. It includes a number of agencies that focus on immigration.
These include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, an agency that is in charge of collecting import duties, passport and document controls at airports, ports, and official points of entry along the border.
The Border Patrol is a federal law enforcing agency under CBP in charge of patrolling and securing U.S. borders and ports.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is a branch of DHS that works within the U.S., within its borders, focusing on detaining and deporting immigrants.
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.
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 refugeecrises,” 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!
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.
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.
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.
Political Piñatas: How Conservatives Use Latinos to Polarize U.S. Society
By Ernesto Castañeda
November 5, 2024
Many are surprised to learn that some Latinos vote Republican. A larger percentage of Latinos voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. A similar percentage or even more may vote for Trump in 2024. There are many reasons for this, which are often misunderstood by the wider public. I discuss some of them here.
Latinos represent the largest minority in the U.S. at over 65 million and have gained attention as political parties vie for the so-called “Latino vote” as elections are won by tighter margins. This is particularly the case in swing states with large Latino populations. How best to describe the landscape of Latino voters’ preferences remains a question of regular debate. On the one hand, Latinos are still frequently superficially treated as a relatively uniform voting bloc —even if more “up for grabs” today with polling data suggesting gradual shifts in party affiliation. As such, Latinos are often treated as a demographic that can tip the balance in favor of a party. Nonetheless, polls and pundits necessarily flatten the real views of Latinos. This has always been a diverse group. The birth of the term Hispanic aimed to bring together Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans around common causes. Regional differences are key; for example, in the D.C.-metro region, Latinos are diverse and majority Salvadoran; in California and Texas, they are mainly of Mexican and Central American descent; in South Florida, they are a mixture of Cuban, Venezuelan, Colombian, Nicaraguan, among others.
Many recent immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean come escaping failed states and so-called leftist regimes. Many migrants have been directly affected by inequality in their countries of origin. Democratic erosion throughout Latin America and the Caribbean makes it hard for opposition activists and critics of these regimes. Like Eastern Europeans behind the Iron Curtain and Cubans after Castro’s takeover, many recent immigrants see themselves as forced political exiles escaping from authoritarian states that robbed them of their wealth and freedoms. Therefore, in the U.S. they are more likely to identify with ideals of individual freedom and free enterprise.
Trump has also had a polarizing effect on Latinos. Republicans have sought to exploit a process well-documented by scholars: the creation of social boundaries. Trump’s discourse encourages distinctions between “good immigrants” and “good Latinos” in contrast to undocumented “criminals.” Those immigrants with visas and legal permits, higher education levels and family incomes, lighter skin, or who align better with the U.S. geopolitical preferences tend to be more successful than those who do not have immigration papers. This creates hierarchical differences within Latinos. Many U.S.-born and legal Latino immigrants try hard to distinguish themselves from individuals and groups framed as “illegal” and “criminal” to avoid the stigma assigned to those groups.
These social processes create durable inequalities not only between Latinos and non-Latinos but also among Latinos. In public discourse, Latinos are used as proxies and piñatas to polarize Americans further. In turn, some Latinos internalize feelings of inferiority or superiority and may loudly act upon them, adding to the process of polarization. Some Latinos organize against dehumanizing language and build networks of solidarity among Latinos and with other groups. However, a numerical minority such as the White Nationalists and antisemites Nick Fuentes or Enrique Tario, leader of the Proud Boys, are not passive receivers of stigmatizing attacks but become amplifiers of hate speech in exchange for group membership as part of a sometimes-xenophobic White majority. Some who have seen fellow Latinos excluded, targeted, and stigmatized may try to pass as White by attacking other Latinos, further polarizing the country in the process and weakening democratic institutions and minority rights. For these reasons, studying the effects of polarization on Latinos and the role that Latinos have in social polarization is of national importance.
Latinos can hardly be said to form a cohesive or predictable voting bloc. Latinos do not fit neatly into the racial categories that often orient public political debate, which can lead to simplifications of Latinos’ views. Latinos are relatively less partisan as a group. A Pew Research Center report indicates that less than half of Latinos acknowledge significant differences between political parties, with a large share agreeing that neither party effectively represents their interests. Immigration is motivated by economic success, so access to jobs and better pay are their priority. Most Latinos have papers, so immigration is not an immediate concern for most Latino individuals, but it is a theme full of an emotional load; the immigration struggles of family members are close to their hearts.
An influential narrative regarding political polarization is that the electorate has become increasingly stoked by racial tensions and grievances. In this account, race is an important source of polarization. Latinos’ views are diverse and sometimes distinct from those of other Americans and more often map with those of similar occupations and socio-economic status. The diversity within Latino communities impacts the overall political polarization dynamics in the U.S. Typical analyses of race/ethnicity as a variable in culture war-type political contests do not adequately account for the heterogeneity of Latinos as a group and for the range of variation of their political commitments. National origin, gender, religious affiliation, geographic location, educational attainment, class, media consumption, and generational experience, among others, are impactful factors in identity formation.
Latinos display greater cultural unity than political unity. Latinos are part of their local and larger national political ecosystems. Latinos, despite immigration status, have demonstrated notable unity mobilizing in response to racist anti-immigrant rhetoric from local, state, or national politicians. Research also shows that over time, anti-immigrant policies can contribute to the withdrawal of Latinos from the public sphere. But sometimes there is increased group cohesion among Latinos as a reaction to external group threats such as public hostility toward immigrants and the portrayal in the media of Latinos as likely to be Mexican, undocumented, and lesser than. A stronger identification as Latino resulting from previous political organizing does lead to higher levels of political participation. In other cases, as Latinos become business owners, upper middle class, and part of mainstream U.S. society, they may become more politically conservative and may try to distinguish themselves from newcomers. Other successful Latinos, who are less insecure about their status, mentor and open doors for others, volunteer, and become philanthropists.
Furthermore, some Latino subgroups are more susceptible to misinformation. The choice of media varies by immigration status and age. Older first-generation Latinos often opt for more traditional media sources such as radio and T.V., and more often in Spanish. Younger Latinos, often second- or third-generation, exhibit a wider range of media consumption, mainly in English and social media. These choices create different media echo chambers, differing attitudes about the meaning of “Latino,” and varying political values even within the same family.
Ernesto Castañeda, PhD is Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab and Professor at American University.
This piece is a revised and shortened version of an unfunded research proposal written for the Carnegie Fellows Program on Polarization in November of 2023.
You can republish and reprint this piece in full or in part as long as you credit the author and link to the original when possible.
Proyecto 2025 es una agenda de políticas públicas desarrollada por la Heritage Foundation, destinada a ser implementada durante los primeros 180 días del posible segundo mandato presidencial de Donald Trump, en caso de que gane las elecciones del 2024. Este manifiesto tiene 922 páginas y está dividido en cinco secciones, la primera de las cuales se titula “Tomar las riendas del Gobierno.” Si se pone en efecto, este plan tiene el potencial de transformar por completo la estructura del gobierno federal y cambiar el país en su totalidad.
Los Lazos con Trump
El 5 de julio, el expresidente Trump declaró: “No sé nada sobre el Proyecto 2025. No tengo idea de quién está detrás de esto” (Trump). Reiteró este sentimiento durante el debate presidencial del 10 de septiembre, afirmando que él no tiene “nada que ver con el Proyecto 2025” (NBC).
Sin embargo, tras bastidores, la situación parece bastante diferente. En una grabación filtrada por el Center for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, exdirector de la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto durante la administración de Trump, miembro del comité de plataforma del RNC y coautor del Proyecto 2025, reveló que Trump ha “bendecido” a la Heritage Foundation y que “[Trump] apoya mucho lo que hacemos.” Vought también indicó que “no le preocupa” que Trump se distancie públicamente de la iniciativa e indica que esto no debe tomarse en serio.” [Trump] ha estado en nuestra organización. Ha recaudado dinero para nuestra organización.”
Además, varios funcionarios de alto rango de la administración de Trump han sido clave para dar forma al Proyecto 2025. Entre estos contribuyentes se encuentran el ex-asesor de la Casa Blanca Peter Navarro, el ex secretario de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano Ben Carson, el ex jefe de personal de la Oficina de Administración de Personal (OPM por sus siglas en inglés) Paul Dans – ahora director del Proyecto 2025 – y Spencer Chretien, exasistente especial, que actualmente se desempeña como director asociado del Proyecto 2025.
¿Cuáles son sus implicaciones para la política de inmigración de los Estados Unidos?
El Proyecto 2025 tiene importantes implicaciones para la política de inmigración, entre ellas:
Finalización del Muro de Trump
“Asignación obligatoria para la infraestructura del sistema de muro fronterizo. Los fondos asignados se utilizarían para financiar la construcción de sistemas, tecnología y personal adicionales para el muro fronterizo en lugares estratégicos” (página 147).
Lo que dice: Se propone aumentar la financiación para ampliar el muro fronterizo entre los Estados Unidos y México, que aumentaría la vigilancia fronteriza y el contrato de más miembros de la patrulla fronteriza.
Impacto: La finalización del muro fronterizo puede llevar a que los migrantes decididos busquen métodos más peligrosos para cruzar la frontera, lo que resultaría en un aumento de abuso y violencia hacia los inmigrantes. Las expansiones del muro de Trump actualmente tienen 30 pies de altura y ya han resultado en un aumento de muertes y lesiones graves debido a caídas de migrantes (NIH). Solo en El Paso, en los siete meses posteriores al aumento de la altura del muro, la Patrulla Fronteriza y personal de salud han respondido a 229 lesiones por caídas del muro, incluyendo piernas rotas y lesiones cerebrales o de la columna vertebral (NBC).
Con la construcción de segmentos adicionales del muro, los inmigrantes indocumentados decididos a cruzar la frontera se enfrentarán a estos riesgos. Más segmentos del muro podrían empujar a aun más personas al desierto de Sonora, aumentando la mortalidad migrante (UCLA). La expansión del muro de Trump profundiza las tensiones que ya existen entre Los Estados Unidos, México y otros países latinoamericanos, ya que el muro se percibe como un símbolo de división en lugar de cooperación. En lugar de tener fronteras mortales, políticas de inmigración humanas y efectivas podrían proteger mejor los derechos humanos y fomentar relaciones internacionales positivas.
Aumento de la Militarización de la frontera
“Departamento de Defensa: Asistir de manera agresiva en la construcción del sistema de muro fronterizo en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos. Además, reconocer explícitamente y ajustar el personal y las prioridades para participar activamente en la defensa de las fronteras de Estados Unidos, incluyendo el uso de personal y equipamiento militar para prevenir cruces ilegales entre los puntos de entrada y canalizar todo el tráfico transfronterizo hacia los puntos de entrada legales” (páginas 166-167).
Lo que dice: ElProyecto 2025 pide un aumento de presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, que probablemente se utilizará para reforzar protocolos de inmigración.
Impacto: Habrá una mayor presencia militar en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México, con más autorizaciones directas al uso de fuerza militar, lo que podría llevar a encuentros más violentos con inmigrantes, independientemente de las circunstancias. Esto pone a los migrantes en un mayor riesgo de encuentros extremos y violentos con la patrulla fronteriza. Además, existe incertidumbre sobre cómo podrían cambiar los centros de detención en respuesta a estas medidas. La militarización de la frontera podría resultar en una mayor militarización de los centros de detención, lo que incrementaría la probabilidad de situaciones hostiles y abusivas para los migrantes en dichos centros.
Deportación Acelerada de Inmigrantes y Deportaciones Masivas
“Para maximizar el uso eficiente de sus recursos, ICE debe hacer pleno uso de las autoridades de Deportación Acelerada (Expedited Removal ER) existentes. La agencia ha limitado el uso de ER a extranjeros elegibles detenidos dentro de las 100 millas de la frontera. Este no es un requisito legal” (página 142).
“ICE debe ser identificadas como responsable de enforzar regulaciones civiles de inmigración, las que incluyen el arresto civil, la detención y la expulsión de infractores en cualquier lugar de los Estados Unidos, sin orden judicial cuando corresponda” (página 142).
Lo que dice: La política actual de ICE sobre la Deportación Acelerada (ER) que aplica en un radio de 100 millas de la frontera se ampliaría bajo el Proyecto 2025 para permitir que ICE detenga a presuntos migrantes indocumentados sin una orden judicial en cualquier parte del país.
Impacto: El proceso de ER ya es controversial, ya que permite a los oficiales de inmigración arrestar y deportar a inmigrantes indocumentados sin una orden o audiencia judicial. Además, “a diferencia de otras órdenes de expulsión, una orden de ER normalmente no puede ser apelada y conlleva una prohibición de cinco años para el reingreso en la mayoría de las circunstancias” (American Immigration Council). El proceso de ER es inconstitucional, ya que viola el derecho al debido proceso (due process) (Houston Law Review). Los oficiales de ICE podrían ser los que deciden el destino de los solicitantes de asilo, u otros inmigrantes con circunstancias especiales en lugar de un juez de inmigración, quien debería estar tomando la decisión. A medida que ICE y el control migratorio se vuelven más poderosos, se aumenta el temor sobre el impacto en las comunidades que ya son marginalizadas, donde una autoridad sin supervisión podría causar más daño y desigualdad.
Restaurar el Título 42
“Crear una autoridad similar a la del Título 42. Autoridad de Salud Pública que se ha utilizado durante la pandemia de COVID-19 para expulsar a extranjeros ilegales a través de la frontera inmediatamente cuando no se cumplen ciertas condiciones sanitarias, como la pérdida del control operativo de la frontera” (página 147).
Lo que dice: El Título 42 fue una política aplicada durante la pandemia de COVID-19 que restringió la inmigración para ayudar a prevenir la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, específicamente COVID-19. El Proyecto 2025 exige que se restaure un proceso como el Título 42, pero no solo para circunstancias excepcionales de emergencias de salud pública. Más bien, se aplicaría a cualquier circunstancia en la que se considere necesaria la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes.
Impacto: Mientras el Título 42 estaba en vigor, el gobierno solicitó la expulsión inmediata de los inmigrantes y solicitantes de asilo que llegaban a la frontera sin una audiencia judicial, lo que violaba el derecho constitucional al debido proceso. La política menciona específicamente su aplicación en casos de “pérdida del control operacional de la frontera”, lo que podría interpretarse de manera amplia y utilizar siempre que las autoridades lo consideren necesario, independientemente de los hechos de cualquier caso individual. La vaguedad en torno a las circunstancias de la aplicación de dicha política podría terminar con la posibilidad de pedir el asilo en la frontera.
Eliminación de “Zonas Sensibles”
“Todos los memorandos de ICE que identifican ‘zonas sensibles’ donde el personal de ICE tiene prohibido operar, deben ser revocados. Confiar con el buen juicio de los oficiales en el campo para evitar situaciones inapropiadas” (página 142).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 establece claramente que quieren deshacerse de las “zonas sensibles” y las zonas libres de ICE.
Impacto: Las áreas protegidas existen para garantizar que miembros de la comunidad tengan acceso libre a servicios esenciales, como (y no limitados a) escuelas, instalaciones médicas, lugares de culto o estudio religiosos (CBP). A ICE no se le permite entrar a estas áreas sin el permiso adecuado, ni llevar a cabo típicas acciones policiales como arrestos, aprehensiones civiles, registros, inspecciones, incautaciones, entrega de documentos de acusación o citaciones, entrevistas y aplicación de control migratorio. La eliminación de las “zonas sensibles” permitirá que las autoridades saqueen estos lugares, que se consideran refugios seguros para los inmigrantes.
Aumento de Espacio en los Centros de Detención
“El Congreso debería ordenar y financiar espacio adicional en camas para los extranjeros detenidos. ICE debería recibir fondos para un aumento significante en los espacios de detención, elevando el número de camas disponibles a diario a 100,000” (página 143).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 tiene como objetivo por lo menos duplicar el número de migrantes posibles retenidos en centros de detención (hasta 100,000). En este momento, la cuota diaria de espacio para inmigrantes en detención enfrentados a la deportación es de 41,500 camas (Congreso).
Impacto: Al aumentar la capacidad de detención, el Proyecto 2025 busca expandir e institucionalizar la detención de inmigrantes indocumentados o solicitantes de asilo. Con una mayor capacidad, se podría decir que proteger la “seguridad nacional” es una justificación para poder perfilar a la gente por motivos raciales y detener a migrantes inocentes para poder llenar los centros de detención. Además, a medida que aumenta el número de migrantes en los centros de detención, también se aumenta el riesgo de sobre populación, servicios de salud inadecuados y acceso limitado a asesores legales. Esto también puede resultar en un proceso de detención más largo, donde las personas son encarceladas en centros por términos indefinidos. Estos centros de detención, muchos de los cuales anteriormente eran prisiones privadas (ACLU), aíslan a los inmigrantes indocumentados y los mantienen en condiciones inhumanas. Esta sección del Proyecto 2025 muestra que se planea un gran aumento en el número de personas detenidas en centros de detención que suelen ser inhumanos y además de posibles deportaciones.
Eliminar las Protecciones para los Menores No Acompañados
“El Congreso debe derogar la Sección 235 de la Ley de Reautorización de Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA), que proporciona numerosos beneficios de inmigración a los niños extranjeros no acompañados y solo ayuda a incentivar más padres a enviar a sus hijos a través de la frontera ilegalmente y sin acompañantes. Con demasiada frecuencia, estos niños se convierten en víctimas de la trata de personas, lo que significa que la TVPRA ha fracasado” (página 148).
Lo que dice: LaSección 235 de la Ley de Reautorización para la Protección de las Víctimas de la Trata William Wilberforce de 2008 (TVPRA)actualmente proporciona protección y asistencia a los menores no acompañados, niños que cruzan la frontera sin un padre o tutor, que corren el riesgo de ser víctimas de la trata de personas y son más vulnerables a la explotación. Su revocación eliminaría estas importantes salvaguardias para los menores no acompañados.
Impacto: Sin estas protecciones, los niños detenidos en la frontera ya no se beneficiarán de una ley de retorno seguro a su país de origen. Además, estos niños y jóvenes perderían el acceso a tener hogares seguros, servicios de atención médica, abogados y defensores legales, ajustes de estatus migratorio, protecciones de asilo y otros tipos de asistencias sociales que los protegen de la explotación, incluida la trata de personas. Además, la eliminación de las protecciones legales para los menores no acompañados dificultaría el proceso de investigación de las autoridades, para poder llevar acción legal contra esquemas de trata de personas. En lugar de quitar ayudas, el gobierno debería centrarse en crear un sistema que procese eficazmente a los niños, proteja derechos humanos y minimice los traumas adicionales para que los niños no acompañados se mantengan alejados de mayores peligros.
Eliminación de Visas para Sobrevivientes de Trata de Personas y Otros Delitos
“Eliminar las visas T y U. La victimización no debe ser una base para un beneficio de inmigración. Si un extranjero que fue víctima de tráfico o delito está cooperando activamente y de manera significante con las autoridades como testigo, la visa S ya está disponible y debe ser utilizada. A la espera de la eliminación de las visas T y U, La Secretaría debería restringir significativamente la elegibilidad para cada visa para poder prevenir el fraude” (página 141).
“También se ha puesto énfasis en la eliminación de las barreras legales a la inmigración, como el uso de beneficios públicos” (página 143).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 propone eliminar las visas actuales otorgadas a las víctimas de la trata de personas (visa T) y otros delitos graves (visa U) que asisten a las fuerzas del orden público a investigar y enjuiciar a quienes cometen tales delitos. Este documento argumenta que la victimización no es una forma legítima de calificarse para beneficios de inmigración, en cambio, se sostiene que este tipo de visas son una ruta fácil hacia el fraude.
Impacto: Las visas T y U existen para que las víctimas indocumentadas de crímenes en los EE. UU. no tengan miedo de denunciar por temor a la persecución y la deportación. La eliminación de estas visas aumentaría la probabilidad de que las personas indocumentadas ya vulnerables caigan victimas al mismo crimen, perpetuando un ciclo de violencia. El Proyecto 2025 propone utilizar la visa S que actualmente ya es disponible en lugar de las visas T y U. La visa S es una visa temporal que permite a los inmigrantes que hayan sido testigos de un delito residir en los EE. UU. mientras ayudan con investigaciones criminales o terroristas. Mientras que la visa S suena similar a las visas T y U, esta visa ignora las circunstancias de la victimización de los migrantes y no reconoce la protección de los derechos humanos. Las visas T y U también tienen como objetivo ayudar a las víctimas de esos delitos a reconstruir sus vidas, proporcionando acceso a atención médica, asistencia legal o cualquier otra atención dada la situación, mientras que la visa S no lo hace. Además, las visas T y U fomentan cooperación y confianza con las autoridades, mientras que las visas S son mucho más restrictivas y pueden aumentan la vulnerabilidad de las víctimas, ya que los perpetradores de los delitos saben que sus víctimas no tienen derecho a utilizar el sistema de justicia de forma “normal” como un ciudadano.
Dar prioridad a los inmigrantes “altamente calificados”
“El programa H-1B, del que se abusa a menudo, debería transformarse en un programa de élite a través del cual los empleadores compiten por traer solo a los mejores trabajadores extranjeros con los salarios más altos para no reducir las oportunidades estadounidenses” (página 145).
“Reforma H-1B. Transformar el programa en un mecanismo de élite exclusivamente para atraer a los ‘mejores y más brillantes’ con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantizar que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en desventaja por el programa” (página 150).
Lo que dice: El gobierno debería utilizar el programa H-1B para priorizar aún más a los inmigrantes altamente calificados. Las personas que ya no tienen méritos y disponibilidad distinguidos deprimen las oportunidades estadounidenses y no se les debe permitir emigrar.
Impacto: El programa H1-B permite que empresas estadounidenses contraten temporalmente a trabajadores de otros países para trabajar en “ocupaciones especializadas.” Para poder satisfacer los criterios de una ocupación especial, uno debe tener conocimiento especializado o experiencia en un campo particular y al menos una licenciatura o un equivalente (Departamento de Trabajo de EE. UU.). El programa H1-B se normalmente se utiliza para contratar profesionales en sectores de ingeniería, matemáticas, tecnología y ciencias médicas (American Immigration Council). El Proyecto 2025 pide que el programa H1-B se transforme en un “mecanismo de élite” que contrate a trabajadores inmigrantes altamente calificados con los salarios más altos y, al mismo tiempo, garantice que los trabajadores estadounidenses no estén en ninguna desventaja por el programa. Esto hecho puede llegar a ser engañoso, ya que hay estudios que muestran que los trabajadores H1-B no ganan menos que los trabajadores nacidos en los EE. UU. ni tampoco reducen sus salarios (American Immigration Council). Además, hay un límite anual a la cantidad de visas H1-B que se entregan. Con restricciones nuevas a las visas de trabajadores se podría reducir la cantidad y diversidad de talento, limitando las oportunidades para trabajadores calificados con potencial que aún no han demostrado niveles de éxito de élite. Además, una proporción grande de la economía de EE.UU. está compuesta por trabajadores que no se clasificarían como “altamente calificados,” tales como trabajadores agrícolas y en la construcción, pero que, sin embargo, son esenciales para el éxito de estas industrias. Centrarse solo en los inmigrantes “altamente calificados” puede tener consecuencias perjudiciales para las industrias que dependen de una amplia gama de trabajadores: incluidos los puestos de nivel medio y de nivel inicial, y provocar escasez de mano de obra, salarios más altos o precios más altos para los consumidores.
Reducir las Visas de Estudiante
“Priorizar la seguridad nacional en el Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP). ICE debería poner fin a su actual deferencia acogedora hacia las instituciones educativas y eliminar los riesgos de seguridad en el programa. Esto requiere trabajar con el Departamento de Estado para eliminar o reducir significativamente el número de visas emitidas a estudiantes extranjeros de naciones enemigas” (página 141).
Lo que dice: Debería haber restricciones más estrictas en las instituciones educativas que otorgan visados, incluida la disminución del número de visas de estudiante disponibles.
Impacto: El Programa de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVP) es un programa administrado por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) que proporciona visas para no inmigrantes para estudiantes y visitantes de intercambio de otros países que buscan una educación en los EE. UU. El Proyecto 2025 implica que el programa SEVP es muy laxo en la admisión de estudiantes extranjeros y que el proceso debe ser más estricto para reducir los riesgos de seguridad. Esta afirmación descarta el hecho de que el DHS utiliza un sistema seguro, llamado Sistema de Información de Estudiantes y Visitantes de Intercambio (SEVIS), que recopila información sobre estudiantes y visitantes elegibles para el programa SEVP para garantizar que se mantiene seguridad nacional. Además, el Proyecto 2025 propone disminuir significativamente el número de visas otorgadas a “naciones enemigas.” Esto podría alimentar tensiones geopolíticas con otros países y crear divisiones sociales y tensiones en los EE. UU., como el aumento de la xenofobia (aversión o prejuicio contra las personas de otros países), ya que solo los que provengan de países occidentales serían aceptados para estudiar en los EE. UU. Esto también podría crear una barrera innecesaria para la entrada a los EE. UU. de posibles estudiantes altamente calificados que pueden contribuir a la economía de los EE. UU.
Restricciones Estrictas de Asilo y Reducción de Refugiados Aceptados
“El estándar para un temor creíble de persecución debe elevarse y alinearse con el estándar para el asilo. También debe tener en cuenta específicamente las determinaciones de credibilidad que son un elemento clave de la solicitud de asilo” (página 148).
“El Congreso debería eliminar el motivo protegido por grupo social particular por ser vago y demasiado amplio o, en su defecto, proporcionar una definición clara con parámetros que, como mínimo, codifiquen la decisión en materia de A-B de que la violencia de pandillas y la violencia doméstica no son motivos para el asilo” (página 148).
Lo que dice: Estas dos declaraciones del Proyecto 2025 recomiendan restricciones más estrictas sobre quién es elegible para el estatus de asilo, incluido el aumento de los estándares para casos de temor creíble de ser víctimas a la persecución. El Proyecto 2025 agrega que ser parte de un grupo social específico o ser víctima de violencia de bandas o violencia doméstica no debería calificar a alguien para el asilo.
Impacto: Esta recomendación del Proyecto 2025 permitiría al gobierno rechazar y potencialmente poner en peligro la vida de los solicitantes de asilo que no cumplan con los estándares extremadamente altos para demostrar un temor creíble a la persecución (Human Rights First). Las Naciones Unidas publicaron un informe en 2021 en el que expresaban que implementar regulaciones extremas para los solicitantes de asilo es una violación de los derechos humanos (ONU). Los solicitantes de asilo que se enfrentaban a un temor creíble a la persecución bajo a los anteriores requisitos ahora necesitarían evidencia de estándares altos, que puede no estar disponible dependiendo de las circunstancias de la persona. Con restricciones a lo que significa ser un solicitante de asilo, las personas que puedan haber declarado un temor creíble de persecución pueden tener más problemas con las solicitudes de asilo, lo que lleva a largos procesos administrativos y violaciones de los derechos humanos. También dificultaría que una administración pueda otorgar asilo temporal a algunas categorías específicas de migrantes, en respuesta a desastres naturales, desplazamientos forzados y otras amenazas a gran escala para la vida y los medios de subsistencia.
No más Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)
“Actualmente, aproximadamente entre 15 y el 20 por ciento de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB consiste en ayudar a los solicitantes de DACA a obtener y renovar sus beneficios, incluyendo la autorización de trabajo. Esta no es la función del Ombudsman. Además, el gobierno debería ser un árbitro neutral, no un defensor de los extranjeros ilegales” (página 166).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 afirma que la carga de trabajo de la Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB) está abrumada por ayudar a los solicitantes de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) a obtener y renovar beneficios. Además, este documento implica que el gobierno está actuando como defensor de los inmigrantes indocumentados al asistir a los solicitantes de DACA.
Impacto: La Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) permite a las personas que fueron traídas a los EE. UU por sus padres antes de los 16 años, ser elegibles para trabajar, estudiar y servir en el ejército. Los beneficiarios de DACA tienen que renovar sus beneficios cada dos años para mantener la protección temporal contra la deportación. La mayoría de los beneficiarios de DACA han crecido como estadounidenses, han recibido educación estadounidense y son miembros de la comunidad. Muchos de ellos se enteran de que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses una vez que son adultos y atraviesan procesos como solicitudes de empleo y de universidad.
La Oficina del Defensor del Pueblo de los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración (CISOMB),sirve como enlace entre el público y los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS), para ayudar a los inmigrantes a abordar problemas e inquietudes con su experiencia con USCIS. CISCOMB es una oficina independiente en el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) separada de USCIS que procesa las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. La afirmación hecha por el Proyecto 2025 con respecto a que CISOMB está agobiada con renovaciones de solicitudes de DACA es engañosa, ya que CISOMB no tiene ninguna autoridad para aprobar o denegar las solicitudes de renovación de DACA. No hay evidencia que informe el porcentaje de la carga de trabajo de CISOMB como se afirma en el Proyecto 2025. Además, esta sección del Proyecto 2025 enfatiza que el gobierno no debería proporcionar ningún servicio a los beneficiarios de DACA, porque promueve empatía hacia los inmigrantes indocumentados. Estos sentimientos dirigidos a ayudar a individuos que se vieron obligados a migrar de niños permiten más flexibilidad para seguir privando a inmigrantes indocumentados inocentes del derecho a la educación.
Restringir los recursos educativos para los estudiantes de DACA
“Departamento de Educación: Negar el acceso a préstamos a aquellos que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses o residentes permanentes legales, y negar el acceso a préstamos a estudiantes en escuelas que dan matrícula estatal a extranjeros ilegales” (página 167).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 pide que el Departamento de Educación niegue préstamos estudiantiles a cualquier persona que no sea ciudadana estadounidense o residente permanente. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impacta a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar al Departamento de Educación que niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes en las escuelas que permiten la matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA.
Impacto: Actualmente, los inmigrantes indocumentados tales como los estudiantes de DACA, no son elegibles para recibir ayuda financiera federal, excepto para los refugiados y algunos titulares de visas (FAFSA). Sin embargo, veinticinco estados de EE.UU. permiten que los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA, paguen matrícula estatal (fuente). Esto permitiría a los beneficiarios de DACA recibir una educación superior más accesible en sus estados de residencia, a pesar de no ser elegibles para préstamos federales. Este segmento del Proyecto 2025 también impactaría a los estudiantes no inmigrantes al aconsejar que el Departamento de Educación niegue los préstamos estudiantiles a todos los estudiantes que estudien en universidades que permitan pagar matrícula estatal a los estudiantes inmigrantes indocumentados, como los estudiantes de DACA. Esto puede entenderse como un esfuerzo para penalizar a las escuelas que permiten que los estudiantes de DACA paguen la matrícula estatal y, por lo tanto, limitar el acceso de los estudiantes de DACA a una educación universitaria.
Mandato E-Verify
“El Congreso también debería autorizar permanentemente E-Verify y hacerlo obligatorio” (página 149).
Lo que dice: El Proyecto 2025 hace un llamado al Congreso para expandir E-Verify, manteniendo una autorización permanente y mandato del sistema.
Impacto: E-Verify es un sistema utilizado voluntariamente por los empleadores, con algunos mandatos estatales y locales, que verifica la elegibilidad de los empleados para trabajar en los EE. UU. (USCIS). Sin embargo, E-Verify no es tan confiable como el Proyecto 2025 sugiere. E-Verify se basa en registros del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) y de la Administración del Seguro Social (SSA), que no siempre están actualizados, lo que resulta en errores o lo que E-Verify llama “discrepancias“. Los errores en el sistema podrían resultar en identificaciones erróneas de personas, incluidos ciudadanos estadounidenses, como incapaces de trabajar en los EE. UU., lo que podría provocar una pérdida del empleo o retrasos en el trabajo hasta que se corrija el error.
Más Transparencia con Respecto a la Información Tributaria de Inmigrantes Indocumentados
“Departamento del Tesoro: Implementar todas las regulaciones necesarias tanto para igualar los impuestos entre los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los titulares de visas de trabajo como para proporcionar al DHS toda la información fiscal de los extranjeros ilegales lo más rápidamente posible” (página 167).
Lo que dice: El Departamento del Tesoro debe hacer que los ciudadanos estadounidenses y los inmigrantes con visas de trabajo paguen la misma cantidad de impuestos. Además, el Departamento del Tesoro debe proporcionar al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional toda la información fiscal de todos los inmigrantes indocumentados lo antes posible.
Impacto: Por lo general, las personas con visas de trabajo pagan la misma cantidad de impuestos sobre la renta que los ciudadanos estadounidenses, con algunas exenciones, como el pago de Seguro Social y Medicare (IRS). Este plan requiere que aquellos con visas de trabajo paguen impuestos por el Seguro Social y Medicare, lo que sería injusto ya que ellos solo viven en los EE. UU. temporalmente y no recibirán dichos beneficios.
Además, el Departamento del Tesoro retiene toda la información fiscal recopilada en los EE. UU., incluida la información fiscal de los inmigrantes indocumentados que pagan impuestos. Si DHS tiene toda la información de identificación, los agentes fronterizos pueden usar esta información confidencial para determinar quién es indocumentado y quién está documentado. Pueden usar esta información para ejecutar planes para llevar a cabo deportaciones masivas de inmigrantes indocumentados, incluso de aquellos que pagan impuestos. Sin embargo, en 2022, los inmigrantes indocumentados pagaron $96.7 mil millones en impuestos federales, estatales y locales (ITEP). Los inmigrantes indocumentados contribuyen significativamente a sus comunidades y al país en general. El presupuesto federal, que durante algún tiempo ha luchado con un déficit creciente (PGPF), no se beneficiaría de deportar a todos los inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan y pagan impuestos en los EE.UU. Incluso amenazar con entregar toda la información fiscal al DHS desalentaría a los inmigrantes indocumentados de pagar impuestos. Esto también afectaría las finanzas del sistema de Seguro Social, que a menudo disfruta de un superávit para los inmigrantes indocumentados que contribuyen con pagos pero no reciben beneficios después de la jubilación.
Falta de Controles y Equilibrios en la Frontera
“El presidente busca una legislación para desmantelar el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS)” (página 133).
“La Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de los Estados Unidos (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) se combinará con el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE); Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS); la Oficina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados (ORR) del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS); y la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Inmigración (EOIR) y la Oficina de Litigios de Inmigración (OIL) del Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) en una agencia fronteriza y de inmigración independiente a nivel de Gabinete (más de 100,000 empleados, lo que lo convierte en el tercer departamento más grande medido por mano de obra)” (página 133).
Lo que dice: Las agencias de inmigración se consolidarán en una agencia centralizada que controlará toda la implementación y acción de la política de inmigración.
Impacto: El posible desmantelamiento del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) y la consolidación de las preocupaciones relacionadas con la inmigración bajo una sola agencia plantea preocupaciones sobre la disminución de la rendición de cuentas, la transparencia y las protecciones de los derechos civiles de los migrantes. Junto con una mayor militarización del régimen de inmigración de Estados Unidos, podría ser más fácil esconder los abusos de los derechos humanos debajo de la alfombra, lo que llevaría a una mayor represión de los migrantes.
Conclusiones Clave
Contrariamente a la creencia común, la inmigración es esencial para la economía de los Estados Unidos. Los inmigrantes fueron responsables del 50 por ciento del crecimiento del mercado laboral en 2022. Una disminución en la inmigración a los EE. UU. afectará notablemente a industrias importantes donde la mano de obra indocumentada suele ser esencial, como la agricultura, la construcción y el sector de servicios, lo que podría provocar escasez de mano de obra y mayores costos para los consumidores. Las deportaciones masivas de trabajadores esenciales disminuirían la fuerza laboral, lo que podría provocar inflación, escasez de alimentos y otros productos, y precios más altos de las necesidades básicas (Forbes). Si el Proyecto 2025 se ejecutara y aplicara durante un segundo mandato de Trump, las políticas de inmigración más estrictas podrían contribuir a una recesión económica (AULA).
Las recomendaciones de política de inmigración propuestas en el Proyecto 2025 tienen como objetivo crear un cambio significativo en la aplicación de la ley fronteriza que promueva un sistema de aplicación estricta sin ofrecer caminos a la legalización para aquellos que ingresaron al país indocumentados, con el único plan de deportación y detención masivas. Si una segunda administración de Trump adoptara las recomendaciones de política promovidas aquí, aumentaría las vulnerabilidades que enfrentan los inmigrantes, tanto documentados como indocumentados. En lugar de fomentar un sistema de inmigración humano y eficaz, el Proyecto 2025 se inclina hacia medidas punitivas que priorizan la aplicación de la ley sobre la compasión. Para concluir, el Proyecto 2025 transformaría fundamentalmente la estructura del gobierno federal de maneras profundamente perjudiciales para los migrantes de todo tipo, pero también para el florecimiento de la sociedad estadounidense en su conjunto.
Katheryn Olmos es Asistente de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está en el programa de maestría en Sociología, Investigación y Práctica en American University.
Luc Thomas es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Está completando su Licenciatura en Ciencias Políticas en American University.
Inés Hidalgo Wieckowicz es pasante en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración. Es estudiante en la Escuela de Servicio Internacional en American University.
Ernesto Castañeda es Director del Laboratorio de Inmigración y del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos en American University.
Robert Albro es Director Asociado de Investigación en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos.
Editado por Diana Garay, Coordinador del Programa, y Mackenzie Hoekstra, pasante, ambos en el Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Latinos y en el Laboratorio de Inmigración.
AULA Blog 