Category: Uncategorized (Page 8 of 15)

The first thing I noticed when New Yorker piece (which I read last) was the word bodies. Four bodies. Six bodies. Ten bodies. It seems like such an inhumane way of describing people. People who have stories and emotions, many of whom, nowadays, have experienced immense trauma. Who are escaping inhumane treatment. Who have been sexually assaulted in the Darién Gap . Who are from Mexico to Honduras to Venezuela, fleeing persecution and targeted (or even un-targeted violence). The people who Blitzer writes about in “Everyone Who is Gone is Here.”

I really appreciated reading the Atlantic article, especially because I love Caitlin Dickerson. It was interesting to read this in the context of her piece “‘We Need to Take Away Children.'” It seemed like almost a prequel to that piece – with the traumas that asylum seekers faced when entering the U.S. (among them, family separation), they faced so many on their way there. I was also struck by the actions of the guides: videoing early on; it’s almost like a disinformation campaign, selling their journey as enjoyable and not telling the hardships and abuse. They don’t show them after sexual assaults and traumas. They don’t show hell. And the fact that Caitlin and her team actually went and traveled through the Darién Gap with their subjects is such great reporting. I hope to have an experience like theirs someday (maybe not as dangerous for my mother’s sake).

Reading this in context of the American government’s various policies regarding immigration and the southern border makes the situation seem all the more hopeless. These people need our help, and I believe we are morally obligated – our “moral imperative” – to provide them that aid. Putting the New Yorker article alongside the New York Times review of “Everyone Who is Gone is Here” truly shows, as the New York Times puts it, “the American immigration system as a victim of its own dysfunction.” And this dysfunction is harming real people who have already gone through such trauma and pain to get here, a land they see as an escape from hardships.

P.S. In another edition of this class, I highly recommend assigning “‘We Need to Take Away Children'” – it is hauntingly well-written (it won the Pulitzer, of course).

Eleven months after fleeing Sudan’s civil war to Cairo with his family, Mohamed Hassan faced a dilemma. Though safe from the horrors of the war, Cairo provided a new set of economic challenges that left him and his family struggling to build a new life. Coupled with the worsening economic situation in Cairo, hearing of the Sudanese Armed Forces recapture of Omdurman, where the family comes from, forced Hassan to consider moving back to the province.

“I was living in a two-bedroom apartment with 10 of my family members, so it was tight,” he told The National . “I arrived in November of last year and it has been one of the hardest years of my life. In the few weeks before I departed Egypt, life had become too expensive to sustain. The school year started and I couldn’t enroll my children because of the high fees.” 

On October 1, 2024, Hassan moved back to Sudan with his wife, daughter and sister, a decision increasing numbers of Sudanese refugees in Egypt are taking. More than 12,239 people crossed into Sudan from Egypt in September of 2024, an increase from the 7,890 in August, a report by the Sudan News Agency confirmed. The numbers are expected to increase as the weeks go on, signaling the extent problems in Egypt are affecting refugees. 

For the 550,00 Sudanese who fled following the outbreak of the war, legal, social and economic barriers have put most into situations of financial precarity. Unable to access services because of lack of aid and organizations on the ground, as well as the necessary documentation needed for employment, many found themselves either unable to make a living or forced into high risk jobs in the informal sector and vulnerable to exploitation. Egypt is a primary destination for Sudanese refugees. However, historical ties between the two nations haven’t resulted in a hospitable welcome or coordination to help in the settlement of those who made it to Egypt, or their legal integration into the labor force. 

In 2004, Egypt and Sudan signed the Four Freedoms Agreement, a framework that in theory aimed to guarantee freedom of movement, residency, work and property ownership for their respective citizens. In the face of restrictions Sudanese face both at the border and administratively once they arrive in Cairo, the promises of the agreement remain unfulfilled. 

‘I’ve heard stories about people being in crisis for decades and still not being able to access any kind of government assistance, so it’s definitely stressful. It’s been nine months, and they still haven’t gotten their yellow cards yet’, said Reem Saeed, a Sudanese Princeton student about her family who fled Khartoum. 

They now live in the Giza governorate, an area west of central Cairo where a large number of Sudanese people have settled. ‘They’ve been trying through the Egyptian government, but that wasn’t working. Now they’re trying with the UN, but it’s such a long and expensive process. They’re completely undocumented, so any employment that they do have isn’t as substantive as if they had full documentation, or even refugee status period,” she said. 

Refugees who make it into Egypt must register with the UNHCR in order to obtain a yellow card. This guarantees them access to essential services such as healthcare, education, permits employment as well as legal protections against deportation, generally for a period of 18 months. Egypt only has three UNHCR offices across the country, two of which are in Greater Cairo and the last in Alexandra, meaning Sudanese are unable to register at the southern border and must first reach the north of the country before registering. Even in Cairo, however, waiting periods for registration can stretch up to six months, leaving many in administrative and economic limbo. In some cases, authorities have denied refugee status to some, claiming they came from ‘nonviolent’ areas.

Reem says her family was reasonably wealthy prior to the war; now, they rely on money her family in the US send back every month to support them. But those who can’t rely on remittances often end up forced into the informal sector, where there are no labor protections and work is poorly paid. 

Meanwhile, Sudanese people are increasingly scapegoated amidst economic problems in Egypt. In January 2024, Prime minister Mostafa Madbouly made statements regarding government assistance to refugees that resulted in a surge of anti-migrant and anti-refugee sentiment following its media coverage, Sada Journal reported. 

For most however, community-run initiatives make up the bulk of support, most set up by Sudanese themselves. For example, in 2020, Amal Raha Bouda, a Sudanese refugee who moved to Egypt in 2018 launched Hope for the Future, a female-run initiative that offers community, education and help for those facing issues such as homelessness and domestic violence. Community schools have been especially vital in providing Sudanese children with education whilst they wait for their yellow cards, without which they are unable to enroll in state schools. 

Angela Klara, a legal caseworker who handles asylum cases in Cairo, attributes the situation to both racism and donor exhaustion.”There’s just nowhere near enough funding. With everything going on in Gaza, Sudan just doesn’t have the same visibility,” she said. “There’s obviously also a racial angle as to why everyones looking away. In Egypt, they’re Black, they’re seen as uneducated, and they don’t get the same urgency as other refugees.”

Sudanese refugees increasingly face discriminatory and racist attacks at the hands of both the police and civilians. These have left the community living and operating in fear, with many scared to leave the house as they know they will be targeted based on their race.

In June, Amnesty International reported the arrest and forcible return of over 800 Sudanese refugees between October 2023 and March 2024. Tracking these cases is difficult as the Egyptian government does not provide statistics on arrests or deportations. An investigation by the New Humanitarian however reported that thousands of cases had been recorded between the Global detention project and the UNHCR. 

The Egyptian State Information Service did not respond to a request for comment.

As Nicole Rodriguez, a paralegal assisting survivors of domestic violence, stood up to leave a New Jersey courtroom, she saw a woman crying. 

“I’m trying to find an attorney and no one’s listening to me,” Rodriguez recalls the woman telling the judge in Spanish. Rodriguez later learned the woman—an immigrant—was married to an abusive U.S. citizen and had fled her home with her son. 

“It’s so depressing when you’re a lawyer and you go into immigration court and you see how many people don’t have representation,” Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova University, explains. “It’s kind of like they’re on this assembly line and we say that we’re giving them ‘process,’ but they don’t understand what’s happening,” she says.

In 1958, the Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Recognition & Accreditation (R&A) Program for precisely this reason—to increase legal representation for low-income immigrants, according to the American Bar Association. The Program certifies accredited representatives, non-lawyers who can represent immigrants in court. Accredited representatives must work at non-profits designated as recognized organizations.

Despite the program’s 66 year history, there are still 1,413 undocumented people in the U.S. for every charitable legal professional, according to the Center for Migration Studies (CMS). In New Jersey, that number increases to 2,687 undocumented people per legal professional. 

Rodriguez, who works at a New Jersey non-profit, is one of those accredited representatives—taking on over 60 cases at a time. Immigrants in removal proceedings who have legal representation are 15 times more likely to seek relief, and 5.5 times more likely to obtain relief, according to a study published by the University of Pennsylvania. 

“It’s very much a program that has been in the shadows,” Pistone explains. Pistone has heard from former students who’ve become accredited that some officers at USCIS—which conducts site visits for the R&A Program—have never heard of an accredited representative. “I’ve heard of judges who’ve never heard of an accredited rep,” she adds. 

There are currently 9 million immigration cases pending at USCIS, and 3 million at EOIR, Robyn Lieberman, Associate Director of the Migration and Refugee Protection Strategic Initiative Group, says. But as of October 2024, there are only 2,561 accredited representatives working at 875 recognized organizations, nationally. “It’s an underutilized tool in the representation crisis,” Lieberman says. “The Program has been on the books since 1958,” she continues, “and there’s never been more than 2,500 at a time.” Why has the number of accredited representatives stagnated despite the growing need for migrants who lack representation?

To become an accredited representative, a prospective representative submits an application with their recognized organization to the DOJ. Rodriguez says, in all, her accreditation took about three months.

But when Rodriguez applied for accreditation, she had no idea how long the process would take. The DOJ provides no such information. 

In 2022, backlogs for accredited representatives reached 12 to 18 months, according to Lieberman. “It is impossible for somebody to put their career on hold for that long,” Lieberman says. “It’s impossible for organizations to keep open cases that long.” In addition, funding for non-profit organizations often depends on quotas that measure how many cases they process.

“That’s basically shutting down the program,” Lieberman says.

While the processing time decreased to one to three months between February of 2023 and 2024, it has begun to increase again. In September, applications took six to eight months to process—double the three to four months it should be taking—according to Lieberman. 

“There should be transparency on the website of how long you can expect to wait for your answer from DOJ,” Lieberman says. 

But the review process itself has transparency issues as well. There are currently two immigration judges—removed from the bench for harassment—who are adjudicating R&A applications, according to Lieberman.

“These are two judges that have had multiple complaints,” she explains. “They are asking some very unusual questions that we’re also documenting—that we think are beyond the scope of the regulations.”

The lack of available contact information for accredited representatives is another problem Lieberman raises. Despite the program’s goal to increase legal representation for low-income immigrants, EOIR only lists the telephone numbers of recognized organizations. Contact information for accredited representatives is entirely missing. 

Lieberman calls it “the referral rejection loop.” “They get a name of an organization that can represent them, and then they pick up the phone, and they’re getting ‘This voicemail is full,’ or ‘Please don’t call us for another two weeks,’” she explains.

“How are people supposed to contact these organizations?,” Lieberman asks. 

Rodriguez’s clients, who are survivors of domestic violence, may not have safe access to a phone inside their home, Rodriguez says.

The DOJ has the contact information of every accredited representative. “People apply with their emails, and they communicate with the DOJ by email,” Lieberman explains.

“This is a public program,” Pistone says. “Part of the purpose is for the public to contact these people.”

But Lieberman says the lack of data on accredited representatives is typical. There has been no comprehensive study of the R&A program in the program’s 66 year history. “There’s no basic data in the field at all,” Lieberman explains. “We have no idea how long the typical average stay is, or tenure is for an accredited rep.”

In May of this year, Villanova University and CMS announced the first comprehensive audit of the R&A program. The audit is being conducted through surveys that closed last month, according to Pistone. 

With the 2024 Presidential Election underway, however, the future of the R&A program remains uncertain. “The R&A Program is not established by law, it’s regulatory,” Matthew Lisecki, Senior Research & Policy Analyst at CMS, explains. 

“It can be done away with just an executive action.” 

Anxieties also exist for Lieberman. “I’m living in fear that if there is a Trump administration, I don’t know what’s going to happen to the DOJ office that does the accreditations,” says Lieberman.

“If it’s a Trump administration, I think we’re going to have to fight like hell to keep the office open.”

But Lierbman also remains skeptical of a Harris administration. “I’ve worked with both Joe Biden and Kamala,” Lieberman explains. “They’re definitely sympathetic, but neither of them have immigration as a priority.”

“They’re willing to surrender to a lot of right wing talking points on immigration, and they’re willing to divert funding away from things that they know are right.”

Sources:
1. Matthew Lisiecki, Center for Migration Studies
2. Michele Pistone, Founder & Faculty Director, Migration and Refugee Protection Strategic Initiative Group, Villanova University
3. Robyn Lieberman, Associate Director, Migration and Refugee Protection Strategic Initiative Group, Villanova University
4. Nicole Rodriguez, Community Victim Advocacy Coordinator & Partially Accredited DOJ Representative, Mercy Center
5. Toinette M. Mitchell, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Disciplinary Counsel
6. Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives Roster: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/942301/dl?inline
7. Accredited Representatives Roster: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/942311/dl?inline
8. A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9502&context=penn_law_review
9. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/bia_accreditation_and_entering_immigration_appearances_1994.pdf
10. https://www.justice.gov/eoir/recognition-and-accreditation-program
11. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c1727e98a9a2e76e2b419d8a15fec36d&mc=true&node=pt8.1.1292&rgn=div5
12. https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/federal-administrative-advocacy/policy-brief-severely-under-resourced-ra-program

Articles such as Caitlin Dickerson’s are so vitally important to journalism, society and politics. Her and Addario brought to readers the extremity of the experiences migrants are willing to put themselves and their children through just to try and reach the US, experiences which I think are not portrayed for their gruesome reality in the way that they should be in political discourse. However when reading I thought back to the discussion a few of us had at the welcoming center about The Struggling Girl and journalists responsibility whilst documenting and relaying the experiences of people they are writing about. In this case I thought it was particularly interesting as Dickerson and Addario decided to make the journey alongside the other migrants, rather than it being a case of western journalists being dropped into situations momentarily to witness and relay them in their current moment, and then leaving once they’ve got enough material rather than experiencing things for themselves. At the same time, while they photographed people and the journey and talked about their struggles, such as not being able to afford food, medicine, as well as meeting unaccompanied children I just imagined how uncomfortable I would be to be reporting and spectating, knowing that potentially I had the power to ease their some of their economic struggles as well established american journalists but choosing not to in order to get an accurate ‘scoop’. They are doing such an essential job of reporting the realities of the Darien gap but at the same time I can’t help feeling morally ambiguous about spectating so much human struggle without intervening, especially to those whose life experiences they will go on to profit from once they are back in the US and have written about them. I think this is why journalism by those living experiences on the ground, such as the type of journalism we have seen the past year from Gazans, needs to be massively amplified and supported. 

In terms of the policy issues discussed, the failures of both deterrence as well as more conciliatory policies was a common theme. The Atlantic article heavily pointed out the unintended effects of deterrence policies, whilst the New Yorker made it clear that more conciliatory policies – by no surprise – don’t end up stemming the constant flow of individuals trying to immigrate for economic opportunities. I think framing is so important when considering these issues. Out of moral principle, refugees and asylum seekers should not be framed as causing immigration ‘problems’ for the US or any country who has signed the refugee conventions. They are simply operating within a framework states have agreed and committed too. Even with the case of economic immigrants, I think as Anuj Gupta at the welcoming center put it, the US needs more workers, and there are so many unfulfilled jobs. The bigger issue here is connecting immigrants with the necessary job openings because the reality is, yes maybe NYC is spending a few billion dollars on receiving immigrants, but the city budget is $112.4 billion. The US spends over 700 billion annually on the military.  I am not an expert in budgetary affairs, but I think  these numbers need to be contextualized, especially when it comes to immigrants and the net gain they contribute over time. 

Over 100,000 ethnic Armenians have been displaced since the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia began in September 2020. After Azerbaijan gained control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, a mountainous area in Azerbaijan, ethnic Armenians living in the region fled. Siranush Sargsyan, a refugee journalist from Nagorno-Karabakh, was one of them. “It’s fucked,” she says.

Ethnic Armenians have lived in Nagorno-Karabakh for centuries and have strong cultural and historical ties to the region. After Azerbaijan regained control, many Armenians became fearful of ethnic cleansing and persecution, leading to a mass departure from the area.

Sargsyan spoke about the toll the war has had on Armenians and the disappointment of Armenian refugees forced to flee Nagorno-Karabakh. Many fled to Armenia, where she describes starved refugees without basic necessities for months at a time.

Delayed assistance from international organizations further contributed to Armenian disappointment and severe resource shortages. “When an international organization arrived to approach us to help, they (N-K refugees) were asking where you had been this entire time,” says Sargsyan.  There was a big silence.”

The Armenian government has implemented assistance in the form of stipend programs. However, one in every thirty people living in Armenia is now a Nagorno-Karabakh refugee, according to the International Crisis Group, straining the amount of funds available.

Nico Vacca, an international affairs research scholar from George Mason University, spoke on Armenia’s current stipend program. “Stipends are being implemented; however, more aid is needed,” he says. “The Armenian government can not afford long-term aid and assistance stipends.”‘

According to Vacca, the EU has given the Armenian government money to aid in assistance programs, but not enough.  Despite the Armenian government’s attempt to help, Sargsyan emphasizes that the stipends must be increased. “Every refugee received mostly 100-120 dollars, which is not enough for leaving Armenia today,” says Sargysan. “Yes, some refugees were provided food and first aid medicine, but nobody is talking about refugees and how they live one year after.”

Not only are challenges related to money an issue for refugees, but Sargsyan also explains inaccessibility to education, adequate health care, and discrimination are disturbing realities refugees have to face.

Mass displacement from Nagorno Karabakh and challenges regarding Armenia’s ability to handle refugees has prompted Armenians to be concerned about the future. Armenia has already suffered through the Armenian genocide during the First World War, where an estimated 1.2 million Armenians were killed.

Former Armenian Assembly and Armenian General Benevolent Union Partner Deborah Devedijan expressed her concern and commented on what she believes is a continuation of the genocide for Armenians. “The ousting and takeover of N-K is the Turks’ continued effort at finalizing the Armenian Genocide, which began in earnest in the 1890s,” Devedijan says. “The Turks, via Azerbaijan, will continue the genocide until all Armenians are dead or out of Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and neighboring regions.”

Devedijan isn’t the only one worried about Armenia’s future. As a small country, Armenia only became weaker after the war with Azerbaijan, which Sargsyan says only makes it more vulnerable. “We’ve already lost Artakh and Nagorno Karabakh, and now I have the same fear about Armenia,” she says. “This isn’t only my fear but also my friends, family members, and people I usually interview. They all have these fears.”

A ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and an end to active war doesn’t necessarily suggest an end to complications between these two countries.  Vacca emphasized that although there is more regional stability because the conflict has ended, Azerbaijan is much more militarily capable than Armenia.

Vacca conducted a strategic report on the conflict and examined its effects on regional stability in the South Caucasus. Contrary to Devedijan’s and Sargsyan’s concerns, he believes there should be less conflict than when Nagorno-Karabakh was an independent state supported by Armenia.

Frustratingly, Sargsyan criticized Western countries for lacking monetary support and proper attention to the region’s stability and refugees. “Most of these countries, US governments, and European countries, France, and Germany, provide some amount of money for refugees, but don’t even know how to care,” she says.

Sargsyan also explained that, ultimately, despite Western countries valuing democracy and stability in the region, they don’t want to pay attention to Armenia. Despite her concerns, she still speaks of what’s next for Armenians and refugees. “I am most definitely not satisfied,” she says.

As of September 2024, Azerbaijan and Armenia are continuing to work on a peace agreement despite continuous threats to Armenians. “I don’t believe in peace. I’ve experienced four wars,” says Sargsyan. “We don’t see any real sign that this country wants to make peace with Armenia even after Nagorno Karabakh.”

On Friday, October 4, the Biden administration announced that it would not extend the humanitarian parole program for citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision has sparked outrage among many immigrant rights advocacy groups who say it could endanger “the lives of as many as 530,000 people”. Similar programs for Ukraine and Afghanistan have been extended in the past. Why not do the same for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela?

This parole program, abbreviated as the “CHNV Parole Program” in reference to the countries it covers, allows citizens of the designated countries to seek temporary asylum in the United States. In an email, Jacqueline Charles, a journalist covering Haiti and the Caribbean for the Miami Herald, clarified that the administration had not ended the program “but decided it will not extend the two year window for those already admitted under the program.” That is an important nuance because it means people from these countries will continue to be eligible for the humanitarian parole program. Under this program, the United States has committed to admit up to 30,000 nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela every month.

Mark Green, the Republican U.S Representative for Tennessee’s 7th congressional district, told the New York Post that the federal government’s move was an “optics-driven smokescreen” by the Biden administration to appear tough on immigration just weeks before the election. The Biden administration has in fact taken a number of restrictive measures to curb the number of crossings into the United States, including an executive order that restricts asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. According to the Associated Press, these measures are a response to the administration’s low poll numbers on its handling of migration, which could be a liability for the Democratic Party in the election next month.

Michael Wilner, the Chief Washington Correspondent at McClatchy, suggested another possible explanation for this decision.

“The administration didn’t renew parole for these groups because they didn’t believe they could guarantee that a future administration would maintain the program. Renewing it would give individuals a false sense of security. By giving them advance notice that they won’t be renewing it, eligible individuals who fall within these groups have time to look at alternative paths to legal status,” Wilner said in a statement via email.

In fact, Haitians who arrived in the country before June 2024 and Venezuelans who entered the United States before July 2023 continue to be eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The TPS program allows beneficiaries to obtain work authorization, it protects them against deportation and establishes a path for them to be granted travel authorization. Cubans have a separate process that allows them to obtain permanent status. This special process, which is guaranteed by the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), “allows Cuban natives or citizens living in the United States who meet certain eligibility requirements to apply to become lawful permanent residents”. Nicaraguans appear to be the most vulnerable group because they are not eligible for any specific program, although they can apply for asylum like all other nationalities, with no guarantee of approval.

The federal government’s decision not to renew the humanitarian parole program for the four countries comes after months of intense scrutiny from Republicans. They have repeatedly described the program as “an abuse of presidential executive authority,” according to the Miami Herald. In September, Trump announced in an interview with Fox News that his administration would not recognize the legal status of people admitted under the humanitarian parole program, putting them at risk of deportation. Earlier this year, about 20 Republican-led states sued the Biden administration over the parole program, though a federal judge ultimately upheld it in March.

Dr. Johnny Laforet, a Haitian lecturer at Princeton University, believes that the program, despite its imperfections, has achieved positive results from the government’s point of view.

“The government wanted to stem the flow of migrants coming into the southern border”, said Laforet. “If you compare the number of border crossings before and after the program was established, you will clearly see the difference”. Back in May,  FWD.us (pronounced Forward US), an immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy organization, published a report that showed that the CHNV humanitarian parole program had successfully reduced “unauthorized migration to the border”. Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed to the Washington Post that “illegal crossings from those four countries [had] fallen 99 percent since the program began in 2022 for Venezuelans and 2023 for the other nationals”.

The humanitarian parole program was launched in October 2022 to provide a legal pathway for Venezuelan migrants trying to flee their country. It was extended in January 2023 to include nationals of Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Since then, the program has allowed more than 500,000 migrants from those four countries to enter the United States with temporary legal status.

Speaking about the benefits of the program specifically for Haitian migrants, Dr. Laforet said that “in addition to applying for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) once they arrive in the U.S., which the administration has made available to them, this wave of newcomers can also get married or find a job that helps them get their green card.”

Overall, Dr. Laforet believes the program has done a lot for the Haitian community, including those who were already established in the United States. “[The parole program] is also good for the Haitians already living in the United States, because now their family members can join them here, and they no longer need to worry as much about their well being back in Haiti.”

Candidate Donald Trump insists that the votes of noncitizen immigrants will skew the 2024 U.S. presidential election. He repeats his claim in his rallies and focused on this anti-immigrant rhetoric in the 2024 presidential debate.

“A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote.” said Trump in the September debate broadcasted by ABC. “They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in practically. And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country,” he said charging Kamala Harris, his democratic challenger, without evidence as being part of a voting scam.

These claims follow a pattern of Republican-led misinformation about voter identification and election interference. Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results was rooted in claims around the unreliability of mail-in ballots and dead people’s votes skewing election results. During this election cycle, misinformation around noncitizen voting is uniquely rampant due to voter polarization and distrust of traditional media, shifting toward alternative sources of news like social media says Laura Feldman.

“People are not as trusting of legacy and mainstream news outlets, whether it’s the New York Times, the Associated Press, or CNN,” says Feldman, professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. “Republicans are much more likely to distrust news media than Democrats, which can be connected to elite rhetoric about liberal media bias.”

Misinformed anti-migrant and racist messaging has defined Republican rhetoric during past presidential election cycles. Trump, before he was a presidential candidate, spread birtherism conspiracies about candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 election, falsely claiming that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore ineligible to serve as US president. Fox News and GOP leaders amplified the “great replacement” theory—that immigrants are coming into the US to replace white Republican voters—to a mass audience following the Republican loss of the 2020 election.

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate [with] more obedient voters from the third world,” said Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Fox News Primetime in April 2021, supporting the great replacement conspiracy. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually.”

Trust in traditional news media steadily declined since the 1990s amidst a media environment that became more sensational and tabloid-driven, intensifying upon Trump’s claims about mainstream outlets broadcasting fake news, according to Feldman. As a result, audiences turned to alternative media sources.

Algorithmic changes and the misinformation policies of social media companies have affected the dissemination of information and conspiracies on these platforms. Elon Musk, who acquired X (formerly Twitter) in 2022 has been an outspoken endorser of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, fueling doubts about noncitizen election interference in his posts.

“The goal all along has been to import as many illegal voters as possible,” said Musk in July on X, to his over 200 million followers. His post garnered 45.8 million views. Musk’s posts about noncitizen voting conspiracies have been viewed over 200 times more than fact-checking posts correcting those claims published on X, reported NBC news.

“He bent the algorithm around his own account so he can draw attention to specific topics in a way that literally no other user on social media can,” said Andy Guess, an associate professor at Princeton University, who studies polarization and misinformation in politics. “He’s totally fixated on this noncitizen issue and can elevate these baseless claims in a way that gets people talking about them.”

Musk’s amplification of noncitizen voting conspiracies follows a wave of a right-wing media boom on social media platforms characterized by xenophobia.

In the past year, YouTube and Rumble livestreamers made money filming and harassing migrants at the US southern border, and TikTok videos claiming that refugees have entered the US as an “invading army of sleeper cells” quickly gained virality. Anti-migrant content is one of the leading narratives on TikTok says Lucy Cooper.

“People could be led to anti-migrant content from consuming news about what was happening at the time, and in that way, immigration is one of the issues that’s the most opportunistic. There’s a lot of pathways into it,” says Cooper, a digital research analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) who researched TikTok and anti-migrant content.

As a growing population of Americans that rely on social media as a news source, social media platforms have transitioned to a hands-off approach to managing political misinformation says Guess.

“One side said, ‘You’re not doing enough to remove hate speech.’ The other said, ‘You’re censoring people.’ There was no way to satisfy both so the platforms generally try to pull back on politics altogether,” Guess says.

Unlike public health misinformation that was widespread during the pandemic in 2020, social media platforms lacked a uniform approach to political misinformation.

“When it comes to viral misinformation about migrants, there’s just no such playbook. An individual case or anecdote that might be based on something real can turn into sweeping statements. It is ambiguous at what point it becomes misinformation.” says Guess.

Young viewers are increasingly getting news from social media platforms as opposed to professional journalism outlets. In the past four years, the share of young adults who regularly get news from TikTok has grown nearly fivefold, up to 45% in 2024, revealed a Pew Research study.

Older demographics encounter different challenges around navigating a changing news media landscape. “They still don’t have crystallized perceptions of the orientation of the platform. That means they’re able to build trust in these platforms because they’re more novel,” said Guess.

Amidst a fragmented social media landscape, with users consuming content on various platforms, the ability to tailor content and reinforce echo chambers further entrenches the noncitizen voting conspiracy according to experts.

“Social media removes the gatekeepers, it’s completely unregulated. It’s increasing the scale in which information and misinformation can spread,” says Feldman. “Within those platforms, everybody is seeing different stuff, so it’s very easy for us to surround ourselves with the information that echoes back to us our existing world views.”

At a campaign rally in Arizona on Thursday, Donald Trump continued his attacks on illegal immigration and his criticism of the Biden-Harris administration’s handing of the border. He said the US is “like a garbage can for the world.”

With Election Day just over a week away, Trump has been focusing on anti-immigration rhetoric as he tries to win over additional voters in this final stretch of the campaign trail, especially in swing states. Though he continues his anti-immigration rhetoric at his rallies, he has not shared many details on how he plans to accomplish his sweeping immigration proposals.

What would immigration under a second Trump term actually look like? What policies would he realistically be able to implement, and what broader impacts will they have on immigrant communities already in the United States?

At another Arizona rally earlier this month, Trump mentioned his proposal to hire an additional 10,000 agents to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border, with no plan for how he will accomplish that or how he will get funding for this proposal. Trump has also proposed mass deportations of millions of people and building new detainment centers.

According to the New York Times, Trump will have a very difficult time getting the resources to implement his proposed policies. Many candidates, especially Donald Trump, rely on hyperbolic rhetoric on the campaign trail to energize their base without any realistic details on how they will put their proposals in action.

Stephen Miller, who oversaw border policy during Trump’s first term and is expected to take on that role again if Trump is re-elected, said at the Conservative Political Action Committee earlier this year that the administration would bring back Safe Third agreements, Remain in Mexico, and Title 42. He also mentioned creating large staging grounds for removal flights.

Safe Third agreements, Remain in Mexico, and Title 42 were all used during the first Trump presidency to curtail immigration. Safe Third agreements with countries in Central America required asylum seekers traveling through those countries to first seek protection there before they get to the U.S.-Mexico border. Remain in Mexico is is a Department of Homeland Security policy which required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico until their U.S. court date. Title 42 is a policy that was revived during the COVID pandemic which allowed for turning away migrants arriving at the southern border on the basis of public health concerns. This policy ended in 2023 by the Biden administration with the end of the pandemic.

According to WBUR, for the first three years of the Biden presidency, there were roughly 2 million illegal border crossings a year, and that number fell drastically with tightened border controls and significantly limited asylum claims. During the Trump presidency, those numbers remained below a million each year.

Daniel Kanstroom, an immigration law expert at the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Policy and co-director of the Boston College Center for Human Rights and International Justice, says he thinks it will be very difficult to implement something like Trump’s mass deportation proposal.

“There really is no way to implement this kind of a massive program without creating what amounts to a police state,” he told WBUR. “You’re going to have to be checking everybody’s I.D.’s. How do you tell who is an immigrant and who is a citizen? People don’t come with labels on their foreheads.” Kanstroom added that he does not think it is possible to identify the immigration status of 11 million people.

This does not mean that there will be no changes at all to immigration policy, or that there won’t be other devastating consequences. There could still be an increase in detention, deportation, and family separation, in addition to fear within immigrant communities.

One thing we know based on previous border crackdowns is that stricter immigration enforcement does not necessarily deter  migrants who want to cross the border. Anuj Gupta, CEO of The Welcoming Center (TWC), says the grit and perseverance of migrants who go through difficult journeys to get to the United States shows that they are determined to make it to their final destination. He says the U.S. should welcome people with that level of grit and determination.

“The issue is not that people want to come to this country,” he says. “The problem is that we don’t have a system to accommodate them.”

As a Philadelphia-based nonprofit organization, TWC provides community support and a wide range of services for migrants, including language training, entrepreneurship support, and leadership workshops. Elizabeth Jones, Strategy and Impact Director, says preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency means responding to changing community needs and emphasizing wellness, while maintaining TWC’s current programming.

“We need to provide a way for people to be able to express their fears,” she says. “Wellness will be threatened.”

The New Yorker book review mentions that “the American immigration system is a victim of its own dysfunction”.  It discusses how backlogs in asylum cases incentivize people to stay in the country, and draconian border laws increase the population of undocumented immigrants. This statement about the dysfunction of the system can also extend to the broader history of the problem at the border because the United States directly contributed to many of the conditions in Central America which are leading people to want to migrate. State repression and crackdowns beget more state repression and crackdowns, and simply redirect the problem rather than solving it; deportations resulting from collaborative crackdowns led by law enforcement and immigration enforcement planted some of the seeds for the problem at the border which is prompting more crackdowns to control the problem.

The Atlantic piece about the Darien gap shows just how much people are willing to sacrifice to make it to the United States. Before Dickerson went down to make the trip, she was told that she could take measures to make it safer, but ultimately, “survival requires luck”. Her takeaway was that making the migration process more difficult does not mean that fewer people will migrate. It just means that cartels and other dangerous groups step in and profit from the process, and many migrants will die. The UN migration officials sent to bus stops and other checkpoints leading up to the Darien gap were ineffective at convincing people to turn back. It is somewhat expected that once people are set on making it to the US and are determined to make the journey regardless of the dangers that lie ahead, there is little that can be done to convince them to change their minds. Additional enforcement attempts by Panama border officials also do not do much to discourage immigration; migrants simply warn each other down the line as they are approaching the border and learn to avoid the officials.

The New Yorker article mentions that there are generally two categories of people who try to come into the country without permission: those who offer themselves up for arrest and apply for asylum (which have increased since 2021) and those who sneak in and try to evade capture. The increase in the number of people who claim that they will face violence or persecution if they return home and are coming from places as far as China is another illustration of the fact that deterrence is not effective at reducing the influx of migrants at the border. A more effective approach would be to facilitate the legal pathways of migration to reduce the number of people who remain undocumented in the country or are waiting for years (in some cases over a decade) for their asylum hearings. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to figure out which asylum seekers are playing by the rules, according to the article. It is interesting that some officials think that more lenient policy is the reason behind more migrants crossing the border because they think the system is gameable.

CALAIS, FRANCE — Three migrants were reported dead on Wednesday by the French Maritime Prefecture. The bodies were recovered as 45 migrants were rescued during a failed attempt to cross the English Channel from France to the UK.

In June, Reform UK released a four-point plan to “stop the boats.” In their plan, they claimed that the UK government could start “picking up illegal migrants at sea and returning them to France.” Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, repeated the claim on Question Time in June and then again on BBC Radio Kent in September. Richard Tice, member of parliament and former leader of Reform UK, tweeted in September, “Starmer needs to explain why he does not have leadership & courage to use 1982 UN Convention of Law at Sea to pick up & take back”

So, can the UK return migrants at sea to France?

“Not without the consent of the French, ” according to James Turner KC, a barrister at Quadrant Chambers specializing in maritime law. “Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not allow the unloading of migrants in other nations’ territorial waters “contrary to the immigration laws” of that country”.

In January 2018, the British and French governments signed the Sandhurst Treaty. The agreement outlined how the governments would cooperate to reduce illegal migration across the Channel. However, the agreement makes no provision for returning migrants intercepted at sea to France. There is only agreement that “Migrants rescued at sea will be taken to a port of safety in accordance with international maritime law.”

“The channel, and indeed a lot of littoral waters, are divided up into search and rescue zones and different states have responsibility in each of them” explains James Tuner KC. “But just because, say, the UK has responsibility for search and rescue in Zone X it doesn’t stop France coming and helping if they have ships in the area.”

In July, a British Border Force vessel assisted French authorities in a search and rescue operation and returned the rescued migrants to France for the first time.

At the time, a Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesperson said: “A Border Force vessel was sent to support French vessels in the operation, coordinated by French authorities.”

James Tuner KC said, “If they were picked up in British waters then the appropriate port of safety will be a British one because otherwise you’re crossing an international boundary with [the migrants].”

Felix Thompson, spokesperson for aid collective Calais Appeal, said, “Although we would never encourage migrants to make the crossing, we tell them that if they do and are in distress, they should contact us as well as the emergency services. That way, we can try and get them help too and it’s on the record that the authorities knew a boat was in distress.”

In November 2021, 31 migrants died crossing the channel when their boat capsized in the English Channel. ​​At the time, the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) called the incident the worst single incident of lives lost since it began collecting data in 2014. A French inquiry in the aftermath of the incident found that the migrants on the boat had repeatedly called French and British search and rescue authorities but received no assistance, despite a French coast guard vessel being in the vicinity. The boat had capsized around midnight, but was not attended to until the next afternoon when a fishing vessel saw bodies in the water and raised the alarm. Many of the migrants who died had frozen to death in the water since the boat had capsized. Five French soldiers have since been charged by French police for failing to prevent the loss of life.

Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to discuss migration. The Prime Minister told journalists that Italy’s deal with the UN-back Libyan government and the Tunisian government “appears to have had quite a profound effect.” He said, “Preventing people leaving their country in the first place is far better than trying to deal with those that have arrived in any of our countries, so I was very interested in that.” The number of people arriving in Italy from Africa has dropped by 64% this year.

It is unclear what lessons the Prime Minister is hoping to draw from his visit to Italy, however. French police already patrol beaches around Calais and Dunkirk and prevent migrants from leaving French shores where they encounter them.

“The Italians in the past have been very naughty about what they have done with refusing refugees to be landed in their ports. They have also offended against the principle of refoulement,” said James Tuner KC. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Italian government had violated international human rights law by returning more than 200 migrants intercepted at sea to Libya, their point of departure.

During the Boris Johnson Conservative government, Home Secretary Priti Patel drew up plans for a “push-back policy” under which border force vessels would forcibly push migrant boats back into French waters. The plans were abandoned, however, in the face of legal challenges. It was also thought that the chance of endangering migrant lives was so great that the policy was unworkable in practice.

“The international legal framework of the Refugee Convention and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the Search and Rescue Convention and the Collision Regulations all conspire against doing anything radical to ships at sea” said James Turner KC, who was involved in the legal challenge to Patel’s policy. He added, “I do not think the solution to migrant crossings is a legal one.”

The debate as to how to prevent migrants crossing the channel continues as the IOM has raised the death count for migrants crossing the channel in 2024 to 52, making it the deadliest year of crossings since 2018.

Zoe Sigman, an analyst at the IOM’s Missing Migrant Project, said, “We can never say that we have captured all of the data and in fact we know that we don’t capture all of the data.”