Week of September 8–14, 2024

Many individuals arriving in the U.S. seeking protection are faced with incomplete Notices to Appear (NTAs) in immigration court, which lack essential information such as the date and time of their hearings. Legally, an NTA must include these details to be valid under INA § 239(a)(1), yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often issues NTAs without them, failing to coordinate with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to secure a hearing date. This issue has persisted despite clear rulings from the Supreme Court, including Pereira v. Sessions (2018) and Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021), which reinforced the requirement for complete NTAs.

In 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled in Matter of Fernandes and later in Matter of Aguilar Hernandez that incomplete NTAs violate mandatory claims processing rules. Despite these decisions, DHS continues to issue defective NTAs. Recently, in Matter of R-T-P-, the BIA permitted immigration judges to “fix” these NTAs by adding missing information, compromising their role as neutral arbiters and raising due process concerns.

The current system, where immigration judges—employees of the Department of Justice—amend flawed NTAs, underscores the need for an independent immigration court. Advocates argue that an Article I immigration court, free from Justice Department control, would ensure fairer and more impartial proceedings, strengthening public confidence in the immigration system. This reform would protect procedural due process and uphold justice for those facing deportation.

Following this week’s presidential debate, much media coverage focused on who “won” the contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, as well as Trump’s claim about Haitian immigrants in Ohio. However, according to New York University researchers, abortion was the top issue among viewers during and after the debate based on online search data, despite media attention on other topics.

Prior to the debate, crime was the most-searched election topic, but searches quickly shifted to abortion, reflecting public interest in abortion rights and state laws. NYU’s Courant Institute study highlighted this difference between viewers' focus and media narratives, suggesting that debate discussions can substantially influence public interest.

Alongside abortion, immigration emerged as a leading topic, with viewers seeking information on candidates’ positions and immigration laws. Additionally, searches on “Project 2025”—a policy initiative—rose by 900%, driven by high interest in swing states like Pennsylvania. Topics related to Harris and Trump’s backgrounds also trended, including “Kamala Harris’s economic plan” and “Donald Trump’s inheritance.”

The study also tracked online sentiment shifts, showing a positive rise in economic outlook but a decrease in sentiment on immigration, moving it from positive to neutral by the debate's end. Researchers used data from Reddit, Google, and YouTube, applying sentiment analysis to understand public mood before, during, and after the debate, highlighting how sentiment shifted due to the debate’s focus on key issues.

Immigration is a prominent issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential race, with former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris as key contenders. After President Biden’s July 2024 withdrawal, Trump has centered his campaign around immigration, repeatedly addressing border policies. During the 2024 Republican National Convention and the first presidential debate, Trump blamed Harris, dubbing her Biden’s “border czar” and criticizing her immigration record.

In Biden’s administration, Harris’s role did not include managing border policy. Instead, her diplomatic focus was to decrease migration incentives from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She aimed to strengthen economic and civil infrastructure in those nations and enhance lawful migration channels.

Most Americans view immigration as a priority issue, with a majority favoring reduced migration, though specific policy opinions vary. Trump has proposed an aggressive immigration stance if elected, planning the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history, deploying troops to the border, expanding ICE facilities, and revoking protections for migrant children under the Flores settlement. He also intends to end birthright citizenship, revoke visas of foreign pro-Palestinian protestors, and mandate "ideological screening." Additionally, Trump promises to restore several of his previous policies, such as building the border wall, reinstating the "Remain in Mexico" policy, and enforcing "extreme vetting." Harris’s campaign focuses on diplomatic solutions, though her specific proposals have yet to be detailed.

Canada’s economic challenges have shifted from high inflation to high unemployment and slower growth. To address these shifts, the Canadian government has implemented stricter immigration policies. While these measures could temporarily ease unemployment and housing costs, they also risk limiting future growth by slowing workforce expansion. Currently, inflation is on track to hit the Bank of Canada’s target of 2% next year, but growth remains weak, and unemployment has risen to 6.6%, fueled by immigration outpacing job creation.

In response, the Bank of Canada has implemented rate cuts, while the government has capped temporary residents at 5% of the population, restricted work hours for international students, and limited foreign worker hires in high-unemployment regions. These restrictions reduce demand in areas like housing and retail, especially in university towns that rely on international students. However, they also raise concerns about future labor shortages in sectors like healthcare and construction, which rely heavily on immigrant workers.

Canada’s labor market recovery relies on immigration as it counters the economic pressures from an aging population and declining consumer spending. Restricting immigration could dampen long-term growth, despite short-term benefits. The government’s focus may need to shift toward sustainable measures like automation, innovation, and productivity enhancements to maintain economic stability without relying solely on immigration.

The Washington Department of Health (DOH) is suing to access the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, operated by The GEO Group, after repeated denials of entry in 2023. This privately-run detention center, the only facility of its kind in Washington, has faced accusations of human rights violations, including inadequate food and hygiene. A 2023 Washington law, House Bill 1470, was enacted to enhance state oversight of private detention centers, yet GEO has argued that state inspectors were barred per U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directives.

DOH initially filed a lawsuit for access, which was dismissed in federal court. However, a second suit was filed in August after continued denials, and GEO is attempting to move this case to federal court. A separate case filed by the Department of Labor & Industries successfully obtained an order for access, allowing the agency to inspect the facility under workplace safety statutes.

GEO’s legal arguments assert that HB 1470 discriminates against them as the sole private detention operator and imposes unconstitutional burdens on federal contractors. The federal government has supported GEO, citing potential overreach of state authority into federal immigration enforcement. The courts previously sided with GEO, blocking state health officials from entry, and that injunction is now under appeal at the 9th Circuit. The legal battle over Washington's oversight of the detention center continues, with further hearings scheduled.

The first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris centered on immigration, with Trump doubling down on his hardline stance and accusing Harris and the Biden administration of failing to control the U.S. border. Trump painted a grim picture of immigration’s effects, alleging that immigrants, particularly from Haiti and Venezuela, were creating chaos in American towns like Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado. He even made an unfounded claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were harming pets, though local authorities have debunked these accusations.

Harris countered by calling Trump’s rhetoric extreme, defending the Biden administration's efforts to manage immigration. She highlighted recent measures that have reportedly reduced border crossings and criticized Trump for obstructing bipartisan immigration reform. Harris pointed to her support for a bipartisan border security bill that Trump allegedly helped block, arguing it would have bolstered national security.

Trump continued to emphasize what he describes as a crime surge linked to immigration, pledging to implement strict border policies and a large-scale deportation initiative if re-elected. Harris, however, called for a collaborative approach, advocating for balanced solutions that address border security while providing legal pathways for immigrants. She accused Trump of using immigration as a political tool rather than working toward a meaningful fix.

Julia Alexander and Deirdre Kerins, recent graduates from MSU College of Law, have been named fellows of the prestigious Immigrant Justice Corps (IJC), a national program aimed at equipping lawyers to aid immigrants in need.

For Julia Alexander, the IJC fellowship is a realization of her mission to serve immigrant communities. As the child of immigrants, Alexander was motivated to pursue law to combat discrimination. Her law school experience included positions such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Chair for the Student Bar Association, Articles Editor on the International Law Review, and student clinician in MSU’s Immigration Clinic. She clerked with Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and Legal Aid organizations, furthering her commitment to public interest work. As an IJC Fellow, Alexander will serve as a staff attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center's Unaccompanied Children’s Program, focusing on Special Immigrant Juvenile cases. She aspires to empower immigrants, especially abuse survivors, and hopes to influence future lawyers toward advocacy roles.

Deirdre Kerins brings years of immigration law experience as a former paralegal. At MSU, Kerins gained hands-on experience in immigration law through the Immigration Law Clinic, working on cases like an asylum application for a Cuban doctor. She also completed coursework in immigration law under prominent professors. Kerins’ goal is to combat human trafficking and support unaccompanied minors in obtaining asylum. She values the IJC fellowship for its training, courtroom experience, and mentorship, seeing it as an essential step toward advocating for a fair immigration system.

The language used to describe immigrants in the U.S. often reveals political bias. Liberal lawmakers prefer terms like "undocumented" or "noncitizen," while conservatives lean toward "illegal" or "alien." The Biden administration’s use of "noncitizen" aims to humanize, contrasting with prior administrations’ language choices.

But does judicial language also reflect bias? Legal scholar Keith Cunningham-Parmeter's 2011 study found that U.S. Supreme Court cases using dehumanizing terms were more likely to rule against immigrants. Extending this analysis to federal appellate courts, De La Rosa and Neilson-Papish analyzed 572 immigration cases from the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits. They tracked term usage and outcomes, noting that the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit preferred "alien," while the liberal Ninth Circuit favored "noncitizen." The neutral Second Circuit mostly avoided charged terms.

Their findings suggest that "noncitizen" was associated with more favorable outcomes for immigrants, especially in published decisions. Cases with "noncitizen" were three times likelier to rule in favor of immigrants than those using "alien." Some judges even replaced "alien" with "[noncitizen]" in quoted statutes, reflecting intentional language shifts.

However, some judges resist this trend, preferring statutory language. This study shows that judicial language reflects underlying ideologies, underscoring the power of words in shaping legal perceptions of immigration. Understanding these linguistic patterns could help legal advocates align their language with court leanings, potentially enhancing advocacy outcomes.

Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that undocumented immigrants are draining Social Security and Medicare resources, jeopardizing their solvency. He stated in a recent social media post that “Democrats…are KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE by allowing the INVASION OF THE MIGRANTS,” and reiterated this at a Fox News town hall, alleging immigrants are “loading up” these programs. In reality, undocumented immigrants cannot legally receive Social Security or Medicare benefits. U.S. law restricts access to these programs to citizens and certain lawfully present immigrants, excluding undocumented individuals. Nevertheless, many undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to these funds through payroll taxes.

Contrary to Trump's statements, undocumented immigrants’ contributions have improved the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare. In 2013, the Social Security Administration reported that approximately 3.1 million undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion in payroll taxes, and this contribution has increased to $32.1 billion annually. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that immigrants without a permanent status will pay about $443 billion in payroll taxes over the next decade, yielding a net $440 billion improvement in these funds’ finances.

Additionally, Trump's tax policies have been noted by experts as potentially accelerating the insolvency of these programs. Experts from across the political spectrum agree that immigration, in general, strengthens Social Security and Medicare by broadening the tax base, counteracting the aging U.S. population, and helping maintain the solvency of these essential programs.

Immigration policy has taken center stage in the heated race for New York’s 19th congressional district, with incumbent Republican Marc Molinaro and Democratic challenger Josh Riley clashing over the issue.

In a social media post, Molinaro shared a debunked claim about Haitian immigrants in Ohio, suggesting his opponent “owns” the consequences of border policies. Responding to Molinaro’s accusations, Riley criticized him for promoting “conspiracy theories” and called for him to focus on his congressional duties.

Both candidates have criticized the Biden administration’s handling of immigration. Molinaro ties Riley to Vice President Kamala Harris’s role in immigration policy, referencing Riley’s past support for her. Riley, however, has also voiced dissatisfaction with the administration, specifically regarding delays in tightening asylum rules.

Molinaro touts his support for a strict border bill passed by House Republicans, while Riley favors a Senate proposal; neither has become law. Molinaro has also highlighted Riley’s work as a lawyer and Senate staffer on immigration, including his support for DACA and a 2013 immigration bill that proposed a pathway to citizenship.

Riley defends his actions, noting bipartisan support for the 2013 bill and arguing it could have prevented today’s immigration challenges. The outcome of this race could influence control of the U.S. House, making it one of New York’s key congressional battles.

It took former president Donald Trump six minutes into Tuesday night's debate with Vice President Kamala Harris before he mentioned immigration.

In a recent debate, former President Donald Trump criticized Vice President Kamala Harris’s immigration policies, claiming they would turn the U.S. into “Venezuela on steroids” and accusing her of being “weak” on border security. Trump argued that immigration under Harris’s leadership has led to an influx of 21 million people since 2021, allegedly overwhelming towns and causing a rise in crime. He also repeated debunked claims that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are harming pets—statements local officials have refuted, emphasizing no credible reports of such incidents.

A New York Times/Sienna College poll shows a majority, 53% of respondents, favor Trump over Harris on immigration issues. Harris countered that Trump blocked a bipartisan border security bill that proposed increasing border patrol staff, expanding detention centers, and enhancing asylum processing, which she believes would address current immigration challenges.

Trump’s focus on “migrant crime” in the debate emphasized his belief that immigrants are a significant factor in rising crime rates, despite studies showing that immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. Harris attempted to steer the debate by highlighting Trump’s diversionary tactics and exaggerated claims. Experts note that while Trump’s rhetoric may appeal to those concerned with immigration, Harris’s emphasis on legislative solutions offers a contrasting approach focused on bipartisan cooperation.

Pope Francis has long championed migrants, recently condemning those who deliberately repel them, calling it a “grave sin.” In a public address, he criticized societies that ignore migrant suffering, stating, “Only God sees them and hears their cry.” He emphasized that the humane treatment of migrants is a “moral imperative,” urging people to receive them with dignity.

The Catholic Church, historically a defender of immigrants, has consistently advocated for compassion toward migrants. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reiterates this on its website, stressing that the Church’s teachings uphold the moral duty to “treat the stranger as Christ.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church advises affluent nations to accept foreigners seeking safety and basic needs when possible. This sentiment is echoed by past popes; in 1952, Pope Pius XII likened the Holy Family’s flight to the experiences of all refugee families and highlighted the Church’s historical commitment to helping displaced individuals through various institutions.

Theologian Chad Pecknold and immigration attorney Paul Hunker acknowledge that while Catholic teaching urges care for migrants, it also respects a nation’s right to regulate immigration for the common good. Pecknold emphasizes that the Church does not endorse unrestricted borders, and Hunker adds that immigration policies should safeguard communities. Nonetheless, both agree on the Church’s duty to respond compassionately to humanitarian crises, such as the current influx at the U.S. border.

Immigration reform is essential to address critical workforce shortages in U.S. elder care, according to a report from LeadingAge. With the number of older adults requiring complex care on the rise and a shrinking pool of available caregivers, LeadingAge President and CEO Katie Smith Sloan emphasizes the need for “bold, systemic changes” to increase the long-term caregiver supply, especially during National Workforce Development Month.

The report, “The Immigration Imperative,” highlights that current immigration policies hinder the recruitment of foreign-born caregivers. LeadingAge suggests policy reforms such as raising caps on employment-based visas, removing per-country visa limits, and reducing the wait time for employment authorization. Current policies prioritize workers with higher education, limiting non-degreed workers from filling much-needed direct care roles in aging services.

Statistics show that immigrants, although only 17% of the total U.S. workforce, comprise 31% of home care workers and a significant share of the nursing home and residential care workforce. The report recommends expanding apprenticeship programs to include foreign-born workers and making training more accessible to non-English speakers.

Additionally, LeadingAge calls for a government study on wages, benefits, and support services to improve recruitment and retention of immigrant caregivers, who play an increasingly vital role as U.S.-born workers leave the sector. These changes, LeadingAge argues, are critical to sustaining the eldercare workforce and meeting the needs of aging Americans.

Presidential debates in the U.S. often serve as platforms for candidates to exchange accusations and promote various narratives, often with little factual basis. In a recent debate, Donald Trump repeated claims that migrants are responsible for a rise in crime, even alleging that immigrants are eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio—a claim that was promptly debunked by the debate moderator. Trump’s stance ignores research showing that immigrant communities typically have lower crime rates than the general population, as deportation risks deter criminal behavior.

This anti-immigrant rhetoric, not limited to conservatives, has gained bipartisan traction. Both Kamala Harris’s and Canada’s Liberal Party have adopted tougher stances on immigration, deflecting blame for housing shortages and public service strains onto immigrants rather than addressing deeper systemic issues. For example, in Canada, both conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have linked immigration to housing and healthcare challenges, despite these issues stemming largely from underinvestment.

Politicians’ use of dehumanizing language, referring to immigrants as "floods" or "swarms," strips them of dignity and reduces them to numbers, fostering xenophobia and racialized hostility. This tactic turns immigrants into scapegoats for societal problems, diverting attention from needed reforms in infrastructure and social services. As elections approach, voters can either fall for these narratives or push back, demanding meaningful solutions that treat immigrants as equals, not scapegoats.

The Heartland Workers Center (HWC) recently hosted an event called “Cafecito with HWC” in Nebraska, using the cultural tradition of gathering for coffee to spotlight immigrant experiences. HWC, an organization focused on leadership, workers’ rights, and civic engagement, created this event to inspire and empower Latino and immigrant communities.

Executive Director Lina Traslaviña Stover explained that the event was designed to humanize immigrants, especially during an election year when immigration narratives can be negative. She emphasized the importance of building empathy and understanding toward the immigrant journey, noting how immigrants often face unique challenges in gaining community acceptance and leadership roles.

The event began with a cocktail hour, followed by personal stories and “know your power” seminars. One speaker, Rosa Pinto, a former HWC volunteer now working as a community organizer, shared her journey from immigrating from Peru at 16 to leading teams and fostering collective empowerment.

Attendees also participated in a hands-on activity that symbolized community unity. They added colorful stitches to a black-and-white blanket, symbolizing the diverse and vibrant immigrant communities across Nebraska. This “cafecito” gathering not only celebrated Hispanic culture but also fostered a sense of solidarity, aiming to leave attendees with a greater empathy for immigrants' contributions and challenges in the U.S.

A new report by the American Immigration Council reveals that over 40% of America’s top-earning companies were founded by immigrants or their children, marking a record high. Since 2011, the council has tracked the impact of immigrant founders on U.S. business by analyzing Fortune Magazine's annual list of the 500 biggest companies.

The 2024 report, “New American Fortune 500: The Largest American Companies and Their Immigrant Roots,” found that 46% of these companies were started by immigrants or their descendants. Among the 10 new additions to this year’s list are DoorDash and EchoStar. Altogether, the 230 companies with immigrant origins generated $8.6 trillion in revenue in 2023—more than many national economies—and employed over 15.5 million people worldwide.

Nan Wu, research director at the American Immigration Council, emphasized immigrants' role in fostering job creation and enhancing U.S. competitiveness globally. Wu urged policymakers to recognize the significant contributions of immigrants to the nation’s economic strength.

The report also analyzed where immigrant-founded Fortune 500 companies are most concentrated. New York leads with 32 companies, followed by California with 28, highlighting the major role these businesses play in local economies and state revenues.