From the dining room of a two-bedroom apartment in East Orange, Marie listens to a sermon on the radio as she waits to leave for her night shift. She reaches across the checkered tablecloth, grabs her phone, and glances at the screen. It’s 7 p.m. She places the phone back on the table and, with an awkward movement, stands up. She is about to turn 48, but she still feels like she has energy to keep working. Nonetheless, the heat and the smoke from the fryer at the fast-food restaurant where she has been working have taken their toll on her. She came to the US in 2021 and was approved for Temporary Protected Status after the program was extended in May of that year. Three years later, Marie remains determined to make the most of her health while she still has it, and for as long as she is in this country. Now, more than ever, she feels the uncertainty weighing on her. “He is not going to do it,” she says, trying to convince herself that Trump has been lying about his mass deportation plan. But deep down, she knows Trump is serious, and that terrifies her.

Mass deportations were a central promise of Trump’s 2024 election bid. He vowed to carry out the “largest deportation program” in U.S. history. Now that he’s set to occupy the White House after a landslide election victory in November, migrants are apprehensively preparing for what a Trump presidency could mean for them. Specifically, Trump has promised to end programs like humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, which have allowed thousands of Haitian migrants to enter the United States legally since 2021. Haitians like Marie aren’t just waiting patiently for Trump to begin deportations; they are being proactive and carefully planning their steps between now and January, when Trump takes office. While some are considering a change of status, others are contemplating leaving the United States altogether. Where to? Canada.

In 2017, when Trump first ended Temporary Protection for Haitians, thousands of Haitians flocked to the northern border to seek asylum in Canada. In fact, asylum claims in Canada reached their highest level in decades that year. Seven years later, many suspect that history could repeat itself. Canadian officials are already preparing for an influx of Haitian migrants. But things are very different in Canada today, and perhaps 2014 is not the new 2017.

The solemn violin drone of Solomiya Ivakhiv and the twinkling piano keys of Nadia Shpachenko reverberated through the warm silence of the room. The space was humble in contrast to its grandiose exterior: a towering three-story mansion across the street from the Met, home to the Ukrainian Institute of America. Before they play, Solomiya tells the audience that Nadia has been learning Ukrainian since the war began. “She is not as good as me yet, but she’s getting there,” joked Solomiya. They are now performing far from Ukraine, where Nadia used to live and where all of Solomiya’s relatives are today. The piece was a series of dances from the Epera opera by Thomas ‘Foma’ de Hartmann, honoring the 20th-century Ukrainian composer in a night of music named “Rediscovering Hartmann.” Yet, underneath the folksy, vivid melodies of these performers, if you listened closely, there was a muted interlude of sirens and horns from a bustling New York City bubbling underneath.

Rediscovery has rested at the core of Ukrainian identity since the start of the war in Feb. 2022. This is a rediscovery rooted in the revival of the past—of personhood, of lost historical traditions, and of an appropriated national culture. For these musicians, performances of largely forgotten Ukrainian compositions represent a broader phenomenon since the war: an artistic and linguistic tradition rising from the ashes. Three years out from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, over 6.7 million Ukrainians have been forced to migrate away from their homes and grapple with how they should preserve the identity of Ukraine. Today, Ukrainian musicians are maintaining the memory of an ongoing, brutal war and a revitalized notion of being Ukrainian by carrying their country’s musical tradition close to their chest.

Pitch: How Different Immigrant Communities Are Bracing Themselves for the Second Trump Term

I am writing my final piece about how immigrants of various backgrounds are reacting to Trump’s reelection and what concerns and anxieties they have heading into the next presidential term. I will rely on our interviews in Philly and New York, as well as additional interviews with leaders of relevant organizations in the Chicago area.

Sources:

Miriama Diallo (immigrant from Guinea – from TWC in Philly)
Anuj Gupta (CEO of TWC)
Elizabeth Jones (Strategy and Impact Director at TWC)
Patricia Fernández-Kelly (Princeton professor of sociology and director of Center for Migration and Development)
Johannes Favi (Deputy Director of the Illinois Community for Displaced Immigrants)

Lede and nut graph:

Although it is not yet clear how Trump will enforce his proposed policy of mass deportations, immigrants and advocates are bracing themselves. Most are preparing for increases in detention, deportation, and family separation, in addition to fear within immigrant communities.

Julia Preston’s piece is a thorough walkthrough of what immigration policy can look like under Trump (and now we know the outcome of the election, which was not the case when the piece was written). She accurately describes Trump’s vision of immigration as one that fails to recognize the importance of the contributions of immigrants to this country. She also details the extent of the devastation which could be caused by Trump’s proposed policy of mass deportations.

However, I slightly disagree with Preston’s assessment that Trump and Harris have a narrowing gap on immigration “on the surface” and that Harris’ track record and policy proposals are actually a practical way to address a problem rather than a draconian strategy of enforcement. Harris did move right on immigration. During a CNN Town Hall just weeks before the election, she refused to directly answer a question on whether she supports the border wall due to her support for the bipartisan immigration bill which earmarks funding for it (despite calling it stupid when Trump initially proposed it). Preston also correctly highlights inaccuracies in public perception of immigration enforcement under Trump and under Biden, but this doesn’t change the fact that Harris does support some elements of Trump’s border policy. Preston also mentioned that Harris’ support of the Senate bill is mainly tactical to show that she is willing to compromise and work across the aisle, and can also be the tougher border cop. Unless there was a substantial difference between what she was saying publicly at town halls and rallies and what she was telling advisors privately, it seems that her support for this bill is more than just tactical.

I know the articles on structure are for class, but I liked this quote from the New Yorker piece: “To lack confidence at the outset seems rational to me. It doesn’t matter that something you’ve done before worked out well. Your last piece is never going to write your next one for you.” I was also reflecting on the “considerable tension between chronology and theme” and that chronology usually wins. Even when quoting sources, I often find it easier to start with chronological order then move quotes around based on theme.

Disclaimer: This is certainly not my final, and it will get better as I dig deeper – for example, I want to start with a scene, but I don’t have one yet – but here’s my best shot

When asylum seekers make the decision to make the journey to the United States, they often do so to flee some sort of trauma: organized crime, political violence, persecution based on some part of their identity. Then the journey itself is often treacherous and traumatic, full of dangers and people taking advantage of them – whether they knew of them beforehand or not. Once they get to the United States, some believe that the hardships are over. But even once they are initially processed, the trauma is far from over.

Immigration lawyer scams are as predatory as they are numerous. These scammers pose as lawyers that can help newly-arrived immigrants navigate the US’s complex immigration system. They take the money upfront – sometimes the little that the migrants have left – and disappear, never to be heard from again. And because of the migrants’ fear of the legal system and lack of understanding, the scammers often go unpunished.

Atypical to New York City’s iconic imagery of lofty skyscrapers lies Harlem, a place where the skyline softens and the amount of beaming digital billboards drastically decreases. On the surrounding blocks of West 116th, the streets are filled with African braiding shops, African markets, and tons of African restaurants. West 116th Street, also referred to as Little Senegal, is not the only place where over thousands of African migrants are gathered. Across the nation you can find many communities that were built by Africans for Africans.

A recent trend has shown that an increasing amount of African migrants are coming through the Mexico border. According to Pew Research, many who make it through the border tend to settle in the south or migrate northeast. Of the many destinations, New York City has the biggest Black immigrant population of any metropolitan area, reaching 1.1 million in 2019.

For African migrants, local organizations and established communities like Little Senegal in NYC and Little Liberia in Philadelphia provide crucial cultural and social support. This support from nonprofit organizations and communities is not only what draws them to these areas, but helps them stay there. However, as the political landscape flips with the recent election, worries arise of how state governments and non-profit organizations collaborate – or not– with their immigration work. And how does this relationship impact the future and support of African migrants?

Reading the Preston article post-election was really interesting. She provides a clear roadmap for what’s about to come – and how dangerous it could be. The article was everything I had heard about the two immigration stances rolled into one article. I think she summarized the two candidates’ policy positions really well – especially that Trump’s position and policies are based in racist and violent rhetoric.

For Harris: “curbing unauthorized border crossings and fixing the dysfunctional U.S. asylum system—a central driver of the growing disorder at the southern border over the past decade. She aims to build more secure and orderly channels for migrants to enter the country while also opening pathways for undocumented immigrants already settled in the United States to attain legal status”

For Trump: “Trump has promised to extend enforcement far into the interior, unleashing a nationwide blitz of punitive deportations to forcibly expel millions of immigrants. He also wants to limit new legal immigration”

She aptly uses Springfield as an example of Trump’s words having consequences and notes that he has said he will target those (legal) migrants first in his mass deportation plan. I also appreciated how she summarized his policy during his last presidential term and how those policies (especially Title 42) didn’t necessarily work as a deterrance. Promises left unfulfilled, leading to chaos.

Her section on the Biden and Harris administration border policy was also well written. She backs up her claim that “Despite the return of a semblance of order to the border, the political damage to Democrats was done” very well. This is especially for when she is discussing how the administration had to clean up what Trump left behind.

My biggest question for this piece concerns the format and placement. Preston writes it herself: immigration was one of, if not the most important topic for voters in the 2024 election. And perhaps this is making an assumption here, but I don’t think the average voter is reading Foreign Affairs – nor would read a long-form explanation and analysis like this. The attention span is limited – perhaps bullet points or a shorter analysis, with a longer explanation as an option. And it seems like the average Foreign Affairs reader would already be informed enough to have made a decision about immigration policy already. So who is this for?

In support of the roadmap that Preston laid out, Graham shows that now Trump has won the election, how is is planning to carry out his policies. To quote the headline, he is serious about the deportations. I appreciated how clearly Graham laid out the various people and roles (especially the sentence “If Miller is the architect of mass deportation, Homan will be the builder.”). It will be interesting to watch how closely this plan comes to reality, especially given how many laws would be broken and how devastating it would be to the economy should the plan be carried out. It certainly will be a story to watch – will he truly start in Springfield like he said? Will he truly deport all those millions of people? How will industries like agriculture be affected?

I really enjoyed these articles, in how they help visualize the writing process. Particularly with Rosenthal’s article, I was reminded of the classic video of Kurt Vonnegut drawing story structures on a blackboard; I’m continually reminded of the benefits forays into fiction-style provide. Drawing from other genres of writing, and thinking about journalism as the collision between narrative and informational, hopefully will inform my writing a little more. Great quote from George Saunders (which I’m going to butcher) along the lines of “ you should write how you talk and think, so talk the way you want to write,” which more generally I think applies to the idea that our output is founded in curation of our input. Reading varied writing that I appreciate is the best way to write how I’d like to. I also was interested in the way McPhee celebrated the theme-driven story narrative, in opposition to the chronological one; I wanted to read Preston’s article analyzing its structure, so I broke it up and was happy to find it constantly disrupted chronology. It started in the present election, jumped back to 2021, moved forward, then jumped back to 2016 and moved forward, then jumped to the present, only for a brief encounter with Eisenhower in the far-past. I see how this structure works – and it works well for this analytical / opinion style article – but I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to do something thematic for my longform article. I was just writing out a layout, and I’m wondering how to plan my article before getting the sources and interviews? Is that even a good idea, or should i just immerse and figure it out after? Hard to know how much to prepare without it interfering with my openness to change, in the moment of reporting. 

Despite really enjoying these articles, I’m having a hard time immediately transferring them to my practice. One thing I got from the McPhee piece was how personal his process is – it feels very dependent on the kind of person you are. He talks about the personalized system that was created for him on Kedit; we now have so many different programs we could use, but choosing one is daunting. There’s a turn towards online softwares, and I agree that they’re helpful; transcription softwares especially save so much time, and google drive does a great job of keeping my information backed up and easily accessible. My immediate thoughts were 1) people are turning towards AI to help in their articles… I get that it’s a helpful tool, but I worry that it’ll take away creative potential and limit me, so I don’t use it. It feels like journalism is dependent on work – the best articles are ones where you can tell how much time the author put into them, and that work is unavoidable. But do tools like AI help us cut out the unnecessary work, or just constrict our whole process? 2) on the opposite hand (!) I’m still a huge proponent of paper and analog work. Maybe it’s just because I can romanticize the article-creating process better when I imagine myself working with sprawled papers (and I think being able to romanticize your work process is one of the few ways of keeping yourself constantly engaged) but I really enjoy working with paper; I also just feel more personally connected to the work when I can hold it. Regardless, this is making me want to start printing everything I write to engage with it that way. Regardless of the actual process, I was really grateful for the way McPhee treats writing with a “i’ll do my best,” mindset. Especially in a class of really dedicated students, I think we have to submit to the story’s will. If the effort’s been put in, it’s been put in. Learning when to put the pen down, or close the computer, will probably make our final results better.

“The way that vulnerable immigrant communities feel about the election is that he has been given license to do whatever he wants to do.” Reverend Juan Carlos Ruiz will not say Donald Trump’s name. The Reverend Pastor of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, explains as he cradles a sleeping child, “Whoever is the head sets the tone for the whole body politic.”

Almost two weeks have passed since President Donald Trump won the election to become the 47th President of the United States. In his first campaign for the Presidency in 2016, Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric focused on preventing migrants from reaching the US. He famously promised to “build a wall” on the US-Mexico border. This time, Trump has campaigned on deporting immigrants who are already in the US. Back in May, he told a campaign rally in Freeland, Michigan, “On day one, we will begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” In August, incoming Vice President J.D Vance told ABC News’ Jon Karl, “I think it’s interesting that people focus on, well, how do you deport 18 million people? Let’s start with 1 million. That’s where Kamala Harris has failed. And then we can go from there.” Although Trump’s campaign has not fleshed out exactly how his administration will go about mass deportations, immigration activists, lawyers, and aid organizations across the country are bracing themselves for the coming storm. Memories of Trump’s last term in office run deep. This time, however, there will be no surprises.

In “The Real Choice on Immigration,” Julia Preston brilliantly contrasts the vision of U.S. migration governance that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented during their respective campaigns. She points out that Trump’s approach relies on provocative language and policies that resonate widely with the public, without any sensitivity to what is moral or feasible. In fact, while Trump has been roundly criticized for his talk about immigrants—including by members of the conservative party—many people believe that his approach is effective in reducing the number of immigrants at the southern border, even if it offends the social conscience. One of Preston’s main arguments is that this perception is wrong. She argues that Trump has wasted resources on temporary solutions—such as strict enforcement at the border and in communities or on building up the border—rather than on long-term solutions. For Preston, Harris’s approach is more grounded in practical solutions that address concerns about the porous southern border, realize America’s humanitarian aspirations, and recognize the economic necessity of migrants. She writes that Harris “is proposing practical reforms to fortify the border and overhaul the immigration process in line with the nation’s labor needs and humanitarian aspirations” while “Trump proposes an exclusionist project that would not only bring turmoil and hardship to communities across the country but would also do long-term damage to the U.S. economy and undermine the United States’ global reputation”.

This article was published in the run-up to the US elections in late October, which explains why the author wrote it as a “choice” between two opposing visions of US immigration policy and ultimately presented Harris’s as the most desirable for the United States. However, I believe that outside of an electoral context, there is actually a false dichotomy between the approaches proposed by the two parties. I think it’s worth acknowledging that both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted to the right in terms of their positions on immigration policy. This explains why Biden’s recent moves are in line with what conservative members of Congress would have supported had Trump not insisted on torpedoing any initiative that appears to address the border. It also explains why Biden and Harris supported the bill even though it does not include provisions for a more durable solution and fixes to the country’s asylum system. Preston herself writes that “in its current form, the bill is heavy on Republican enforcement priorities and does not address Democrats’ most long-standing reform demands, particularly for pathways to citizenship for Dreamers, farm workers, and spouses of American citizens”. Rather than a “tactical” and strategic campaign decision by Harris, I believe that the positions on this bill are an indicator of the future of American policy in terms of migration governance, which means a shift towards more restrictive policies, regardless of the political affiliations of the proponents. Understanding this broader structural implication is important because it allows us to move away from individual platforms to understand the changing trends in US foreign affairs and domestic politics. In other words, Harris was not going to save us either.