No result found
Black Alliance for Just Immigration;
Because this report discusses topics that some may find triggering, we have broad content warnings for the whole report which include: racism, displacement, civil war, misogynoir, xenophobia, sexual assault, police brutality, immigration enforcement (ICE), deportation as well as mental and physical health. At the beginning of each chapter, section-specific content warnings are also provided. Below each graph and image, we include descriptive captions for accessibility.Our report is story-driven, which means that we center the voices and experiences of the individuals that we interviewed. We include quotes from them throughout the report. While we may not necessarily agree with all of the content or the language used in each quote, we include them because we believe they help paint a holistic picture of the stories and visions of Black immigrants.For confidentiality reasons, we have removed most personal identifiers and only refer to participants by their location and age. Towards the end of the report, we have a works cited page where you can see some of the articles, projects, and stories that inspired our research.
COVID-19 and the resulting instability has left an indelible mark on every corner of our society. The compounding stressors of uncertain futures, health crises, isolation, financial strain, individual and collective trauma, and juggling life responsibilities is taking a massive toll on people. While the virus itself does not discriminate, the systems in place and the responses do: Black and Latino people are bearing the brunt of the negative impacts.The following data and stories illustrate how the pandemic started a domino effect for Black and Latino Illinoisans. When you are already living on the edge, losing one support can cause others to crumble. Just as the ripple effects of the pandemic did not affect us equally, the recovery must not take a one-size-fits-all approach. We must invest in the hardest hit communities—and that means providing a foundation for people of color to heal and thrive.
This report summarizes various models of refugee leadership development and civic participation programs, identifies keys to success, and uplifts the stories of diverse training components with refugee leaders and their impact, both within the refugee community and in the broader society.This report is written for a variety of funders, including those who work locally in supporting resettlement services for refugees, as well as those who work at the national level in supporting organizing and civic engagement. Funders who currently support resettlement services can leverage the impact of their funding by investing in leadership and civic participation efforts. And those who fund leadership, civic participation, organizing, and advocacy can diversify their grantmaking strategy and magnify their overall impact by adding refugees to their portfolios. Funders can also examine how refugees are connected to their broader portfolios, including health, education, economic justice, racial justice, and gender equity. In tapping this funding opportunity, philanthropy can support refugee leaders across the country to project their own voices and stand in their own power.
American Immigration Council;
President Biden assumed office after making considerable commitments to implement changes to legal immigration in the United States, both to reverse harmful changes by former President Trump, but also in reforming and updating the system more broadly. Trump executed prolonged attacks on many categories of immigrants in thinly veiled attempts to limit the number of noncitizens entering the United States temporarily and permanently. These changes created a series of often duplicative barriers impacting the same populations and limiting the ability of many noncitizens to obtain or maintain immigration status in the United States. While the Biden administration has made significant progress in meeting many of its commitments in restoring and reforming legal immigration in the United States, significant barriers to access remain that will need to be addressed for the system to function in a meaningful manner.This special report analyzes some of the most significant changes to immigration policy made by the Trump administration, as well as the subsequent commitments and accomplishments made by the Biden administration on these issues during its first 100 days. The report also provides recommendations for action throughout the remainder of the Biden presidency to foster a fair and efficient system of legal immigration.
More than 86 million people have legally immigrated to the United States between 1783 and 2019. The legal regime under which they immigrated has changed radically over that time; the politics surrounding those changes have remained contentious, and past immigration policies inform the current political debate. Conflicting visions and piecemeal legislation have left the United States with an archaic and barely coherent immigration system with outdated policy objectives that is primarily controlled by the executive branch of government. We review the history of U.S. immigration policy, including the legal controversies that empowered Congress with its immigration plenary power and the historical policy decisions that still guide the U.S. immigration system, in order to contextualize the current political debate over immigration at the beginning of the Biden administration.
Human Rights First;
More than seven months since President Biden took office, the U.S. government continues to turn awayand block people seeking protection at U.S. ports of entry along the southern border and to expel manyasylum seekers to growing danger in Mexico. For this report, Human Rights First researchers conducted in person and remote interviews with migrantsand asylum seekers, government officials in the United States and Mexico, attorneys, academicresearchers, humanitarian staff, and other legal monitors. Researchers spoke with 65 migrants andasylum seekers in person in the Mexican cities of Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras, and CiudadAcuña in August 2021 and more than 50 additional interviews with migrants and asylum seekers inMexico were carried out by telephone between July and August 2021. Interviews were conductedprimarily in Spanish with a limited number in English. The report draws on data from an electronic surveyof asylum seekers in Mexico conducted by Al Otro Lado between June and August 2021, as well asinformation from U.S. and Mexican government data, media sources, and other human rights reports.
International Refugee Assistance Project;
This report outlines how the "Follow-to-Join" process has been hampered by actions taken by the Trump Administration and how the Biden Administration can improve the process. It compiles information that IRAP has learned in litigation, as well as through individualrepresentation of clients in the refugee admissions process, engaging in policy advocacy, and pursuingFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For years, the U.S. government allowed individuals applying for asylum to physically remain in the United States while their cases were adjudicated. However, in January 2019, the Trump administration introduced the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the "Remain in Mexico" program, which fundamentally changed this process by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for the duration of their immigration court proceedings. This change has created incalculable suffering to asylum seekers along the border. Upholding the United States' commitment to a humane and compassionate asylum system demands not only the immediate cancelation of the program, but a detailed plan to repair the damage it has caused.The following recommendations outline actions the new administration should take before asylum seekers can enter the United States, how asylum seekers should enter the United States, and what procedures should occur after asylum seekers enter the United States to remedy the harm they suffered under the Trump administration's policies. The report also includes recommendations for longer-term actions to eliminate discriminatory asylum regulations and policies in the future.
American Immigration Council;
This report analyzes some of the most consequential changes to immigration enforcement implemented by the Trump administration, the changes that President Biden committed to making during his campaign and transition, and the progress that his administration has achieved in its first 100 days. The report concludes with recommendations for additional changes that the administration should prioritize in working to create a fairer and more humane system of immigration enforcement.
Uninsurance among citizen children with any noncitizen parents rose from 6.0 to 8.0 percent between 2016 and 2019. This increase reversed much of the coverage gains they had experienced between 2013 and 2016 and was larger than that for citizen children with only citizen parents. The Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program participation rate among eligible citizen children with noncitizen parents also fell from 93.1 to 90.8 percent between 2016 and 2019, likely contributing to these children's increase in uninsurance. These changes widened coverage gaps for citizen children with noncitizen parents relative to those with only citizen parents. They also align with findings that the proposed expansion of the "public charge" rule to include use of noncash benefits in applications for lawful permanent residence and other federal immigration policy shifts beginning in 2017 deterred some immigrant families from using public programs for fear of immigration-related consequences.
Human Rights Watch;
The 103-page report, "'Like I'm Drowning': Children and Families Sent to Harm by the US 'Remain in Mexico' Program," is a joint investigation by Human Rights Watch, Stanford University's Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Program, and Willamette University's Child and Family Advocacy Clinic. It examines the effects of the "Remain in Mexico" program on immigrants trying to enter through the United States' southern border, specifically focusing on the impact to children and families.
Center for Inclusion and Belonging at the American Immigration Council;
When it comes to immigration research in the United States, mainstream media coverage and policy analysis have traditionally focused on more top-line public opinion and what is revealed through polling. Average public polling is useful as a means of identifying which Americans are pro- or anti-immigration. It can explain what people feel or want, but it is unable to explain why they feel that way or how deeply they hold that position. It has also therefore been unable to suggest meaningful strategies for intervention or change.This report and the interdisciplinary survey on which it is based sought to overcome these limitations by digging deeper into how respondents think about immigration issues. Our goal was to assess U.S. citizens' mental models of immigration, i.e., their beliefs and attitudes towards it, but also their perceptions of the risks and benefits it poses. Broadly, we asked: In what ways do their beliefs and values interact with their perceptions of immigration? How and why do U.S. citizens hold the immigration attitudes that they do?