Week of October 1–7, 2024

The Biden-Harris Administration’s new D3 waiver guidance has opened pathways for Dreamers seeking work visas, with early success stories showing its potential. Cornell Law School's Path2Papers clinic has been assisting in this effort, conducting over 600 consultations with employers since June. The updated guidance aims to expedite waivers under section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, providing relief to DACA recipients and undocumented individuals who need to apply for visas abroad but fear reentry barriers due to past immigration issues.

Two recent cases illustrate the waiver's impact. An emergency doctor and former DACA recipient received expedited processing, allowing him to continue critical healthcare work in the U.S. Similarly, a structural engineer, undocumented since childhood, successfully used the D3 waiver to return to the U.S. and start his career. This process offers Dreamers a temporary work solution while they await a more permanent status option.

While the D3 waiver provides immediate work authorization, attorneys advise careful planning, especially for those with DACA permits who may wish to explore educational or job changes. The new policy also aligns with USCIS guidelines allowing those with advance parole to avoid unlawful presence penalties.

Although only Congress can enact a permanent solution, the D3 waiver guidance offers transformative opportunities for Dreamers contributing to the workforce, highlighting the policy's positive impact on real lives.

Immigration has significantly benefited the U.S. economy and has the potential to contribute even more, yet current immigration policies limit these benefits. Immigrants increase U.S. GDP and have not negatively impacted wages or job opportunities for U.S.-born workers. However, policies that deny some immigrant workers equal rights harm both immigrants and the U.S. workforce. A more inclusive approach could expand benefits for all workers.

Despite an unjust policy framework, immigration has helped counteract the decline in the U.S.-born workforce, particularly in the prime working-age group. Immigrants complement rather than compete with U.S.-born workers, and contribute to both economic supply and demand, adding deflationary pressure that helps control inflation. Immigrants also pay substantial taxes while often receiving fewer benefits, creating a positive fiscal balance.

Challenges often associated with immigration, such as increased housing costs, are largely due to housing supply constraints, not immigration. Furthermore, immigrants play a critical role in construction, helping meet housing demand. Immigrants also bring human capital and innovation, essential for long-term economic growth.

Reforms that grant immigrants full labor rights, including pathways to legal status, would improve wages and working conditions for all workers. Labor standards enforcement, focused on protecting worker rights regardless of immigration status, could further support fair employment practices. Immigration reforms aligning with broader economic policies can unlock more economic potential, benefiting both immigrants and the broader U.S. economy.

Immigration has emerged as a key issue in the 2024 U.S. elections. Former President Donald Trump has proposed mass deportations for undocumented immigrants, while Vice President Kamala Harris supports reintroducing a bill to reform border policies. Since 2021, over 8.5 million migrants have been encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border, far surpassing the numbers under the Trump administration. Republicans argue that increased immigration leads to job loss, crime, and drug trafficking, while Trump has employed harsh rhetoric, calling some immigrants "animals" and claiming they bring crime.

State Rep. Chris Sinicki warns that such language fosters hostility toward immigrants, noting that many flee intolerable conditions in countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua. UW-Madison professor Benjamin Marquez adds that anti-immigrant sentiments are heightened when immigrants are people of color. Trump’s plans for mass deportations would significantly impact industries reliant on immigrant labor, such as dairy and meat processing, which some argue would harm the economy.

Meanwhile, concerns over resources for immigration processing persist. Lawyer Davorin Odrcic points to long wait times for asylum cases, with some pending for over eight years. A proposed bipartisan bill aimed at expanding resources was blocked, though Harris has indicated she would revive it. Both parties face pressure to address immigration effectively, and the election could determine whether border policies will shift or remain divisive.

In the U.S., conservatives like Donald Trump claim that immigration harms American workers, arguing that more workers mean lower wages for the native-born. This view, now shared by some mainstream Democrats, is that immigration reduces job opportunities and wages. However, economic studies, including David Card’s analysis of Miami’s Mariel Boatlift, show that immigration has minimal to no impact on native wages or employment. Card’s research revealed that despite a surge in Miami’s workforce in 1980, wages and employment rates for native-born workers remained stable, challenging traditional economic theories.

Further studies support this finding, showing that immigrants not only add to the labor supply but also boost demand by spending, which balances wage effects. Critics, such as economist George Borjas, argued that low-skill immigrants reduce wages for the least-educated native workers, but his claims were later refuted due to faulty data and selective sampling.

In practice, immigrants contribute positively to the economy by starting businesses, creating jobs, and enabling services that enhance local economies. For instance, Springfield, Ohio, saw economic growth and job creation following an influx of Haitian immigrants. While immigration critics may argue for restriction on cultural or social grounds, the evidence suggests that limiting immigration is unlikely to benefit the working class economically. Public opinion on immigration remains divided, but research continues to show that immigrants generally enhance, rather than harm, the economy.

In a recent debate, Senator JD Vance argued that immigrants drive up housing costs by competing with Americans for scarce homes. He’s partially correct; immigration does increase demand in the housing market, which can raise prices, especially in areas with limited housing supply due to zoning and land use restrictions.

Economist Albert Saiz’s research supports this: a 1% increase in immigration raises rents and housing values in cities by about 1%. Additionally, immigrants make up a significant portion of the construction workforce—roughly 30% nationally, with higher concentrations in states like California and Texas. However, while immigrant construction workers help increase housing supply, the demand they add initially outweighs this effect, pushing prices up more than their labor lowers costs.

In places like Springfield, Ohio, where recent Haitian immigration coincided with a 101% rise in median home prices from 2019 to 2024, this impact is clear. Homeowners benefit from rising property values, while renters and first-time buyers face higher costs. Vance’s statement highlights a genuine dynamic, but solutions lie in policy changes. Relaxing land use laws and allowing the market to adjust without government interference could help housing supply better match demand. While immigration influences housing prices, the broader economic benefits of immigration, Vance’s policy assumptions, and the role of government in housing remain debated topics.

Recent policies in Florida and Texas require hospitals to ask patients about their immigration status, leading to fears among immigrants about seeking healthcare. State Sen. Victor Torres, representing a predominantly Hispanic area in Florida, says immigrants often express fear over lack of insurance and potential deportation. Though the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act mandates hospitals provide emergency care to all, regardless of status, critics argue these new state policies are intended to deter immigrants from seeking treatment.

Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott support these measures to reveal costs of care for undocumented immigrants. However, data shows immigrants without legal status contribute minimally to overall healthcare spending. In Florida, they accounted for only 0.82% of hospital visits and 0.83% of emergency department visits, translating to about $566 million in a $69 billion budget, with no direct correlation to uncompensated care costs.

Despite assurances that care will be provided regardless of status, many immigrants feel discouraged. Critics, including healthcare and advocacy groups, say these policies could lead to greater costs as minor health issues become emergencies due to delayed care. Migrants contribute significantly to essential sectors, and some fear these policies may drive immigrants away, impacting industries like agriculture. Critics argue the policies are "scare tactics" that unfairly target a population already contributing to the economy without equivalent access to public benefits.

If Donald Trump wins a second term, up to 2.7 million people could lose protection from deportation as immigration safeguards like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) may expire. TPS, which currently protects over 863,000 individuals, is set to end in 2025 and 2026 for most countries, potentially affecting many long-term residents. Trump has signaled his intent to end protections for Haitians and Venezuelans, among others, likely making these populations priorities for deportation.

Humanitarian parole programs for individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Afghanistan may also be terminated. These programs have helped reduce illegal border crossings, but ending them could reverse these trends and lead to a surge in unlawful entry, as many affected individuals lack viable options for returning to their countries.

The economic impact of mass deportations is expected to be severe. Analysts predict that removing millions of immigrant workers could result in significant job losses among U.S.-born workers and a reduction in consumer spending, potentially cutting the U.S. gross domestic product by up to 6.8%. With deportations focused on long-time residents, ICE agents may prioritize accessible individuals rather than criminal offenders, disrupting communities and harming the economy.

Economists and immigration advocates warn that ending these protections would have deep social and economic repercussions.

In their only televised debate, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Hung Cao presented sharply contrasting views on key issues such as the economy, immigration, and energy policy. The debate, held at Norfolk State University, highlighted Kaine's experience in public service, including his efforts on national security and education, and Cao’s background as a Navy veteran and immigrant.

Cao criticized the current economic conditions, attributing inflation to excessive spending on illegal immigration and advocating for energy independence through domestic oil production. He suggested tariffs on foreign goods to support American industries and reduce costs. Kaine countered by citing record levels of U.S. energy production under the Biden administration, including renewable energy investments like the GreenLink project, which he claimed boost local economies. He also defended the administration’s economic achievements, pointing to significant post-pandemic recovery legislation.

On immigration, Cao took a hardline stance, supporting deportation for undocumented immigrants, especially those with criminal records. Kaine argued for comprehensive immigration reform, noting his support for bipartisan solutions that combine border security with pathways for Dreamers.

In a rare moment of agreement, both candidates supported educational investments to address racial inequities instead of reparations. Kaine emphasized his work with HBCUs, while Cao called education the "equalizer," stressing the need for unity. With their differing visions, Kaine and Cao offered voters clear choices ahead of the November election.

Kamala Harris may be moving closer to Donald Trump's stance on immigration as the 2024 election nears, raising concerns among pro-immigration advocates. Although Trump and Harris differ, both have endorsed stricter border, asylum, and immigration policies, with Harris emphasizing her experience as a former prosecutor and pledging to strengthen the southern border.

Harris' campaign now highlights her commitment to border security and reducing asylum claims, pledging to continue border wall construction and prosecute illegal crossings as felonies. Her recent ad promotes her as the leader to address the border crisis, distancing herself from her previous stances. Some Democrats are frustrated by Harris and the Biden administration’s alignment with Trump-era policies they once opposed, fearing it compromises the administration's pro-immigration agenda. Andrea Flores, an ex-Biden official, criticizes the asylum restrictions, suggesting they undermine a fair system without securing the border effectively.

While Harris supports restrictive asylum policies, she advocates legal entry pathways like an app for temporary protection. Yet, the administration has recently decided not to extend these protections for some groups, leaving thousands in limbo. Harris also endorses measures that prevent illegal border crossers from claiming asylum, a shift from her 2019 criticism of similar policies under Trump. Still, Trump’s plans are even more severe, including mass deportations and expanded migrant detention camps, creating clear distinctions in their approaches.

As the U.S. presidential election approaches, immigration remains a heated topic, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border. Yet, amid intense rhetoric, the personal stories of immigrants and their advocates often fade into the background.

“Borderland: The Line Within,” a documentary by award-winning filmmaker Pamela Yates, aims to center these human stories. Screening at UC Santa Barbara's Pollock Theater on Oct. 8, the film will be followed by a discussion and Q&A with Yates and moderator Giovanni Batz. This free event is part of the Carsey-Wolf Center’s CWC Docs series, though reservations are recommended.

The documentary captures a broad perspective, featuring community organizer Gabriela Castañeda’s work in Texas, and the journey of Guatemalan activist Kaxh Mura’l, who seeks refuge in the U.S. after opposing foreign mining on Indigenous land. Other voices include immigration attorney Carlos Spector, tech experts tracking immigration patterns, and ARMADILLOS Search and Rescue volunteers, who search the Sonoran Desert for the remains of immigrants.

“Borderland” offers critical insight into the U.S. border's militarization and highlights migrants as agents of political change, with a focus on Indigenous migration due to violence in Guatemala. Batz notes that Yates and Skylight have long documented human rights abuses in Guatemala, calling this film an extension of their efforts and a valuable teaching tool on immigration and human rights.

Former President Donald Trump, campaigning for re-election, has signaled plans to curb legal immigration programs if he returns to office, despite claiming he is not opposed to legal immigration. Recently, Trump suggested he would revoke the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians, a program that has allowed tens of thousands of Haitians to live legally in the U.S. He also criticized a system that allows migrants to apply for asylum while in U.S. immigration proceedings.

Trump's running mate, Senator JD Vance, echoed these views, calling for the elimination of programs that allow migrants to enter legally. They argue these programs, expanded under the Biden administration, are being abused and allow migrants to enter the U.S. illegally.

Biden administration officials and immigration lawyers defend these initiatives, noting their role in managing high levels of global migration. Critics, including Trump and Vance, argue these programs allow immigrants who would otherwise be denied entry to stay in the U.S. The Trump campaign defends the position by claiming that TPS is meant to be temporary and should end for countries like Haiti.

Trump's stance mirrors his previous policies, including efforts to cut TPS and restrict asylum. While these policies faced legal challenges during his presidency, his allies suggest that courts may now be more receptive to them. As immigration remains a key issue in the 2024 election, Trump’s hard-line position resonates with many voters who support restrictive immigration measures.

In a recent CBS 60 Minutes interview, Vice President Kamala Harris addressed several key issues, including the Middle East, Ukraine, immigration, and gun ownership. As the election nears, Harris' media appearances have increased, following criticism of her limited public presence.

Harris declined to label Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as a "strong ally" due to ongoing diplomatic tensions. She emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Israel people-to-people relationship instead. On immigration, Harris defended her administration’s policies, which have faced criticism from Republicans, including Donald Trump. She blamed Trump for blocking bipartisan immigration solutions, while asserting that her administration has halved illegal immigration.

Regarding Ukraine, Harris rejected Trump's stance, stating that Russia's invasion would not have happened under his presidency. She criticized Trump's claims that he could end the war immediately, calling it "surrender." On the economy, Harris emphasized her plan to strengthen small businesses and raise taxes on the wealthiest to fund initiatives, contrasting it with Trump’s proposals, which she argued would increase national debt.

Harris also discussed gun ownership, revealing that she owns a Glock pistol, referencing her law enforcement background. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, appearing alongside her, criticized Trump’s rhetoric as dangerous and dehumanizing. Meanwhile, Trump, who had initially agreed to the interview, later declined, citing a dispute over the scheduling. Harris also commemorated victims of the October 7th Israel attacks by planting a pomegranate tree at the Vice President’s residence.

A Republican group is running a misleading ad targeting Senator Jon Tester, accusing him of betraying Montana voters by supporting a bipartisan immigration bill in 2013. The political action committee American Crossroads has spent over $2 million on a 30-second ad backing Tim Sheehy, the GOP candidate running against Tester in Montana's crucial Senate race.

The ad uses clips from Tester’s earlier years, where he seems to oppose “amnesty” for unauthorized immigrants, then contrasts them with his 2013 support for the Gang of Eight immigration bill, which sought a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. The ad claims Tester’s votes have supported amnesty for millions, including convicted criminals, and that he allowed over $500 million in COVID relief funds to be used for cash payments to undocumented immigrants.

However, the ad misrepresents the facts. The 2013 immigration bill would have required undocumented immigrants to pay fines, taxes, and pass background checks to apply for citizenship—not granted amnesty as the ad suggests. Regarding COVID relief, the money referenced came from state-level funding, not direct federal payments to undocumented people.

The ad aims to frame Tester as a politician who has shifted from his more conservative roots to align with Washington's political elite, painting him as out of touch with Montana values. Despite its misleading claims, the ad attempts to appeal to voters who may feel Tester has strayed too far from his original stance.

During the October 1 vice presidential debate, Ohio Senator JD Vance claimed that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are in the U.S. illegally. Vance argued that millions of illegal immigrants were overwhelming schools, hospitals, and housing. However, local and state officials confirmed that many of these immigrants have legal status through temporary protections, including humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Vance’s assertion conflicts with immigration law experts, who state that individuals with TPS or humanitarian parole are legally in the U.S. These protections allow Haitians to live and work in the country temporarily, with the possibility of extensions. President Biden expanded both programs, allowing Haitians to enter under humanitarian parole and receive protection from deportation through TPS. These programs grant lawful status, but they do not provide a path to permanent residency or citizenship.

While these protections can expire, leading to potential deportation, immigration experts emphasized that people with TPS or parole are not in the U.S. illegally while their status is active. The claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield are illegal was deemed false by PolitiFact, as they are protected by U.S. immigration law under temporary programs. Vance’s statement misrepresented their legal status, and experts clarified that they are legally residing in the U.S. under these provisions.

A court order has ensured that Washington's Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) can inspect the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, operated by The GEO Group. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle approved a permanent injunction barring GEO from blocking inspections. This decision follows a previous preliminary injunction and resolves a legal dispute between the two parties.

In July, L&I inspectors visited the facility but found no violations. The court emphasized that GEO must comply with state health and safety laws, and L&I is responsible for enforcing workplace safety. The state has attempted to inspect the center in the past but faced resistance, including a December 2023 incident where inspectors were turned away despite holding a search warrant.

The ruling comes amid ongoing litigation over detainee labor conditions. In a separate case, the state Supreme Court ruled GEO violated minimum wage laws by paying detainees $1 per day, leading to a $17.3 million settlement. GEO has appealed, and the issue is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Northwest ICE Processing Center has drawn criticism for various issues, including alleged medical neglect and abuse. Washington lawmakers have called for its closure, and the facility is facing increasing scrutiny, with multiple lawsuits against GEO over working conditions and the legality of new state regulations.

Since an assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump has expressed a strong attachment to a chart he credits for saving his life. The chart, which compares U.S.-Mexico border crossings under Trump’s and President Biden’s administrations, was shown during Trump’s speech in Butler. While reviewing it, Trump was struck by a bullet that grazed his ear, and he believes turning his head saved him. Trump has since made the chart a recurring feature in his campaign, often referring to it as more valuable to him than the police.

The chart was given to Trump by Sen. Ron Johnson during a flight in April and later edited by Trump’s communications team. It highlights the rise in border crossings under Biden’s administration, particularly after Biden halted some of Trump’s policies. Trump has used it to argue that his border policies were successful, claiming that illegal immigration surged under Biden. However, the chart is criticized for inaccuracies, such as misrepresenting the timeline of border crossings and omitting controversial policies like family separation.

Trump frequently displays the chart at rallies, using it to emphasize his stance on immigration and border security. Despite criticisms, including from Rep. Robert Garcia, who pointed out errors in the chart, Trump continues to use it as a key campaign tool. He also frequently recounts the story of how the chart helped him avoid harm during the assassination attempt, further elevating its significance in his narrative.

During a radio interview on Monday, Donald Trump suggested that migrants who commit murder in the U.S. are driven by “bad genes.” He claimed that the U.S. is facing a growing issue with immigrants changing the nation's genetic makeup. Trump was discussing immigration issues and criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris when he referenced a report from the Department of Homeland Security. He stated that 13,000 murderers had entered the U.S. through an open border, and that “a lot of bad genes” were present in the country.

Trump's comments are part of his broader campaign rhetoric about illegal immigration, which he has made a central focus of his 2024 presidential bid. He has previously referred to immigrants in derogatory terms, including calling them “animals” and “killers,” and suggesting they spread diseases. Trump has also vowed to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history if elected.

The statistics Trump mentioned, including 13,099 individuals convicted of homicide, were based on data released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which spans multiple years, including his own presidency. The Biden administration, in contrast, has tightened asylum restrictions, and Harris has worked to present a tougher stance on immigration.

Trump's "bad genes" comment was widely criticized, with White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre calling it “hateful, disgusting, and inappropriate.”

In 2024, immigration remains a crucial political issue for both Democratic and Republican candidates. UW-Madison political science professor Benjamin Marquez explains that for Democrats, balancing immigration policies is challenging. They must avoid being labeled as proponents of "open borders" while addressing concerns about undocumented immigration. Public opinion shows that many Americans, including some Democrats, are uneasy about the current immigration levels. Thus, Democrats must walk a fine line, advocating for border security while not alienating their base. As a result, immigration has received less attention in recent presidential elections.

On the Republican side, Marquez notes that calls for mass deportations resonate strongly with the party's base. However, he questions the practicality of such a policy, pointing out the massive logistical challenges of deporting millions of people. Furthermore, mass deportations could severely impact industries that rely on immigrant labor, such as agriculture, construction, and service sectors. For example, many dairy farms in Wisconsin depend on Latino workers. While mass deportation might energize Republican voters, the long-term consequences of such policies are less discussed, and their feasibility remains uncertain.

Former President Trump announced on Wednesday that he would revoke the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of Haitian migrants living legally in the U.S., aiming to deport them back to Haiti. This statement is part of his broader immigration rhetoric, which has increasingly targeted legal immigrants. TPS is a federal program that allows individuals from countries facing unsafe conditions to live in the U.S. temporarily. Haitians have been eligible for TPS since the 2010 earthquake, which killed over 220,000 people. In June, the Biden administration extended TPS for Haitians until February 2026.

Trump previously stated his intention to deport up to 20 million immigrants if re-elected. In his interview with NewsNation, he criticized the program, claiming that it is illegal for migrants to remain in the U.S. under TPS. His administration had previously attempted to end TPS for around 400,000 migrants from several countries, though a federal judge blocked the move. Trump's position on TPS is expected to face legal challenges if he wins the presidency.

In Springfield, Ohio, Trump reiterated his concerns about the migrant influx, claiming that the city, which he inaccurately stated had received over 30,000 migrants, was being negatively impacted. City officials clarified that the actual number of migrants in the county is between 12,000 and 15,000.

Former President Donald Trump returned to Butler, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 5 to rally his supporters, marking the site of the first assassination attempt against him. He recounted the harrowing events of July 13 when a gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, tried to kill him. Trump praised the heroism of Corey Comperatore, a firefighter killed in the shooting, and honored him with a moment of silence. Trump then shifted to discussing various political topics, including the Biden administration's response to Hurricane Helene, illegal immigration, and the economy.

Trump made several claims during the rally that were later fact-checked. He incorrectly stated that illegal immigration was at its lowest when he left office, citing a misleading chart. He also exaggerated the impact of the American Rescue Plan, wrongly claiming it cost families $29,000 due to inflation. Trump’s claims about Kamala Harris and U.S. immigration policies were also debunked, as well as his assertion that the U.S. has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is false.

Other inaccuracies included Trump’s false characterization of California’s voter ID laws and his claim about a female boxer who supposedly transitioned, which was later refuted. Throughout the rally, Trump’s remarks were scrutinized for their factual accuracy, with many of his statements rated false or misleading by fact-checkers.

During the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, Sen. JD Vance’s microphone was cut after he challenged a fact check on his immigration policy. CBS reporter Margaret Brennan fact-checked Vance's claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, stating that many migrants there have legal status. In response, Vance sought to clarify, discussing the CBP One app, which allows migrants to schedule appointments at ports of entry to potentially gain parole into the U.S.

As Vance continued, the moderators attempted to regain control of the debate, with his opponent, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, also trying to interject. In response, Brennan informed both candidates that their microphones had been cut, a rule set prior to the debate, to move on to other topics.

The debate, the first and only vice presidential one, took place on October 1 in New York, with just over a month remaining before Election Day.