“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.

My story is centered around the experience of Afghan women in the US – currently, it is based on four questions / ideas:

This quote from a lawyer at HIAS: “we failed Afghans, we continue to fail Afghans.” I want to see what ways our system forces educated Afghan women back into the traditional / familial roles that they escaped in the 2010s when the Taliban was expelled from big cities.
What do Afghan women think about a Trump administration? They’ve fled gender discrimination, and came to find an American election that was framed as a gender-war.

Sub-question, which is that I’m wondering what Trump will do about humanitarian parole once in office… he has threatened taking it away, but then he’d have to kick out Afghans. After all his finger-pointing at Biden for the Afghanistan-withdrawal, this would be a real contradiction. What threat does his administration pose for Afghan migrants?

How are Afghan women managing a less familial culture? Especially as many of them have family either still trying to get in.

Best case scenario: i find someone who has family that came up through the Darien (which many Afghans are doing now, because Brazil took away the protections that had initially driven many to immigrate there) and I can speak to that migration story also

How are different generations of Afghan migrants relating to each other (pre-2021, the 2021 influx crowd, and those receiving asylum now) – is it like Latin American migrants, where the older ones have some resentment towards the recent crowd?

My points of access:

Nasiba, who I’ve already written about. Good example of an educated woman who has less opportunities here than she had in Afghanistan pre-Taliban takeover

Wahid and I are going to Virginia the weekend of November 29th, to spend two days there. There’s a huge group of Afghans there, and he could connect me with some interesting people:

https://www.iwmf.org/community/maryam-yousufi/

Former journalist, now basically an Instagram influencer, 367k followers. Has an afghan clothing brand, really interesting example of tradition colliding with American culture

He’s said that once I meet Maryam, I could probably meet a lot more people in her circle, who are similar – how are these women, who seem to be doing well, affected by US policy w.r.t migration and asylum?
Connecting with Women for Afghan Women on November 19th – hopefully they are willing to let me visit their Virginia office, where I could meet a more traditional counterpart to Maryam. If not, I’ll be in Virginia either way. Large Afghan population there, there are other community centers I can contact otherwise. Wahid’s family also lives in Virginia, maybe they could connect me with recent migrants.

NY trip:

Yalda Afif works at Commonpoint community center, used to be director of Afghan resettlement for HIAS. She also is (was?) close friends with Bibi Aesha, who was the TIME cover story in 2011 about Afghan woman repression – would be interesting to check in, and see how Aesha is doing now?
Have connected with the people at WAW. Media-communications officer is out until the 19th, but they’ve indicated i could maybe visit the New York Queens office once she’s back

Minimum viable story: I tell the stories of multiple Afghan women (ideally different class background and time since they’ve come in – Nasiba is a Dari-speaking Hazara, Yalda is Pashto-speaking, hoping to bring in varied groups) showing how they’ve adapted to the US, are supported and challenged by it, and what the Trump administration means for them.

Outline:

I can’t really do a lede or nut graf until I get to immerse

Beginning with a scene of Maryam and her friends, if I can get them to talk about life in Afghanistan as compared to life here. Planning on embedding for a day, hopefully can get them just relaxing. Zoom out to talk about the challenges of living in the US, bring in HIAS quote.

Talk background for a while, bring in general experience of Afghans migrants in general, their migration story, then zoom in on Afghan women and the statistics about illiteracy and unemployment among them – incorporate interviews from HIAS lawyer, bring in more “typical” example of what resettlement has looked like: Nasiba + WAW- or Yalda-connections

Bring in interviews from researchers Held and Rai, about unique challenges Afghan women face, about the loss of extended-family systems (here’s an opportunity to bring in the fact that many Afghans are waiting for their family to be granted asylum – some still in Afghanistan, others coming up from the Darien, others in Iran/Pakistan, facing repression there). Support with an example of Afghan women living traditional lives here (this will be a challenge to find access, maybe a write-around?)

Talk more explicitly about the Trump administration (compared to the experience of women still living in Afghanistan, which comes up in every interview). Come back to Maryam and her friends – are there any similar scenes I might see between Maryam and the other Afghan women I meet?

^^ this is ALL very dependent on the access I get during my trip. Feels very variable, uncertain. How can I set up my time there to ensure I get what I need? This is my biggest concern.

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.

Julia Preston’s piece in Foreign Affairs was a damning indictment of Trump’s migration rhetoric and a warning of what would come with his election. It was written in October as a plea to not underestimate the danger of a Trump presidency or to discount his nativist rhetoric. It’s a bit surreal reading it now, two weeks after he was elected. It feels like we’re marching towards an abyss of fear, chaos and uncertainty. How are we meant to be, as journalists and as people, in a society where truth seems to make no difference?

Preston’s piece was one of countless pieces outlining the blatant mistruths spread about migrants and about Kamala Harris’ record. “In a relentless barrage of mistruths, Trump insists that the influx of undocumented migrants under Biden is on the order of 21 million people, a wholly made-up figure,” Preston wrote. But none of it pierced through or seemed to make a difference. I admit to feeling pretty lost – how do we move forward if the truth doesn’t matter? What is the role of journalism if calling out blatant lies and hatred doesn’t seem to make a difference?

On a more tangible note, I thought that Preston made a concise and compelling explanation of how devastating mass deportations would be on every level. She spoke of individual trauma, family separation, community destabilization, and the incredible blow to the economy. She wrote of how Harris had planned to build legal pathways “for undocumented immigrants, especially the farm workers who make up nearly half of the nation’s agricultural labor force.” In research for my sociology class, I stumbled upon a staggering figure: one out of nineteen civilian workers in the United States are undocumented (Gleeson). “Trump’s plan to shrink the country’s labor force, Posen wrote, “‘is both broadly and deeply self-destructive,’” Preston wrote.

Another important part of Preston’s article was on the total dysfunction of the asylum system. The system was created in the 1980s, and was “never designed to handle large numbers of migrants,” Preston wrote. Before hearing Preston speak at the church in New York, I had no idea of the history of the asylum process. Speaking with her has emphasized how important it is to understand the history, intention, and practice of migration laws – a daunting task given the extreme vagueness and complexity of the system. “Since 2010,” Preston wrote, “changes in the populations that were migrating, and the failure of Congress to update the system with new legal channels for refugees and laborers, have made asylum the default access for migrants coming to the southwest border.” The border crisis is fostered and fed by dysfunctional and destructive immigration policies that were not designed to deal with migration as it is today.

The next four years under Trump are terrifying – I hope we finally start to take him seriously now that he’s been elected, for as David Graham wrote, “If personnel is policy, as the Ronald Reagan–era maxim states, then the president-elect is deadly serious.”

The Preston reading, particularly post-election, highlighted the fact that fear-inducing narratives and anecdotes (even when they are untruthful) have more political purchase than data-driven and sound policy when it comes to immigration. It’s frustrating to me that people are voting for things based off of politically-charged quips and fabricated narratives instead of from a place of actually understanding, as Preston laid out, both Harris’s and Trump’s track record and proposed policies.

That being said, I do not agree with all of Harris’s immigration policies. Particularly raising the legal standard for proving that you are part of a PSG concerns me. While the proposed expedited review process will help with backlogs at EOIR and USCIS, I’m worried about new arrivals who will not have legal representation, who might otherwise have meritorious claims.

While I definitely do not agree with Harris’s policies on immigration, as Preston points out, they are undoubtedly better than Trump’s. People would understand that Harris has more sound policies if they would take the time to learn about her policies in comparison to Trump’s record. Yet these “punchy” narratives seem to carry more political weight in voters’ eyes. I’m curious to know what people think about how (or even whether) we can fight against these fear-inducing narratives that seem to capture more voters than sound policy that offers a practical solution—and whether journalism might have a role to play in this.

Towards the end of the article Preston highlights an important point that I think is often neglected in discussions about immigration: that immigration is a public safety issue. As she points out, if mixed status families and undocumented immigrants fear being deported by police officers or fear having their status questioned by officers they will actively avoid reporting any kind of crime that occurs. I think Trump has led his constituents to believe that new arrivals or undocumented people are somehow separate from the community of people that are documented, but as we’ve discussed in class, these people are deeply enmeshed in their communities. Particularly given the fact that Governor Abbott has made a conscious attempt to bus new arrivals to cities like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia where interpersonal violence is already extremely concentrated to begin with, we should be concerned about the implications Trump’s plan for mass deportation will have with respect to reporting crime in these areas. It seems, unsurprisingly, counterintuitive to me that the issues that Trump is running on—which include fearmongering about a “rise in crime”—are going to be perpetuated (not solved) by the policies that he plans to implement.

Initially, what drew my attention was the Preston’s article about the amount of actionable planning that Trump was doing toward deportation. He spent his entire campaign pushing this agenda, but now that he has the power to appoint people in power, we see that there is this deep desire to fulfill the threats he made. But the how still remains a mystery to most.

Once in office, he followed through with harsh policies like mass deportations, raids on homes and workplaces, and strict border enforcement. For example, his administration used an old law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to send agents into communities, separating families and causing disruptions in schools and businesses. Which opens the question of what he might

The leaders he appointed, like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, pushed these policies aggressively. Trump also used strong language, calling migrants “predators” and blaming them for crime, unemployment, and even inflation. While this kind of talk energized some of his supporters, it may have worsened stereotypes and divisions.

At first, these policies seemed to have an effect—border crossings dropped during Trump’s first six months in office. But as time went on, migrants adapted. By December 2023, U.S. authorities recorded 250,000 unlawful crossings in one month, a record number. This shows how migration patterns take time to adjust, and the impact of policies isn’t always immediate. Migrants often weigh risks and conditions at home before deciding to leave, so the effects of enforcement measures might not fully show up for years. How do we feel about the delay in migration patterns? Should we give policies more time to work before judging their success or failure? This delay is quite contrasting to the digital age we live in so how does this contribute to issues of information getting to people? What role should public opinion play in shaping immigration policies, especially when the issue is so polarizing?

On top of that, these policies caused problems for communities. Long delays in court left migrants stuck in limbo, while residents grew frustrated with what they saw as a strain on local resources. Policies focused mainly on punishment may not address the root causes of migration, like violence or lack of opportunities in migrants’ home countries. As well as what kind of support are these communities getting for this process?

What makes the article so effective is how it explores the gray area between the extremes of immigration policy. It highlights the urgency of securing borders by Trump’s enforcement-focused measures. These policies, while aimed at deterring unlawful migration, often created new problems, such as humanitarian crises, family separations, and overburdened resources. The article makes it clear that while enforcement may be necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to address the complexities of migration.

On the other hand, the article also delves into Harris’s preventative strategies, which aim to address the root causes of migration by creating stability and opportunity in migrants’ home countries. Programs under her leadership, such as job creation and workforce training in Central America, demonstrate that investment in long-term solutions can reduce migration. However, these efforts fall short when it comes to addressing the immediate chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, where record numbers of people are arriving, often fleeing violence or economic collapse.

By presenting both perspectives, the article effectively illustrates that neither approach alone is enough to solve the problem. Enforcement without compassion can exacerbate suffering and strain systems, while long-term solutions can feel disconnected from the urgent realities at the border. The real challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, one that considers both the human and systemic aspects of migration.
How can policymakers better balance enforcement and humanitarian concerns to create effective immigration policies?

I am really interested in how people think of and understand the border crisis. I think Preston’s piece does a really good job of framing how people misunderstand Trump and Harris’ respective records on the border as well as their plans. Trump only built 85 miles of wall during his presidency despite campaigning on building a wall! I also didn’t realise how many of the issues right now at the border are actually because of Trump: because he torpedoed the bipartisan border security bill and because his regulations shut down asylum courts during his first presidency (this was just mentioned in passing but seems quite significant to the current 5-year delays in asylum hearings). By contrast, Harris and Biden seem to have been more effective in reducing the number of crossings and gesturing towards a perhaps more functional asylum and border system. Yet, somehow, they are still seen as weak on the border. Preston’s piece does a good job of tallying the respective policy records, I think most Americans simply don’t understand the economic necessity of migration. It’s equally possible that many do, and they just don’t care. Obviously the article was written before the election, but I wonder if mainstream media coverage will point to white nationalism as a cause for Trump’s election. That seems like a course of action that may well be true to a large extent but also alienating to readers. I remember at the start of the class we discussed how much of people’s resistance to immigration was rooted in racism. I think I remember our answer being inconclusive. Has our answer to that question changed since the election? Does an explicit white nationalist winning the popular vote change our answer? My thinking is that it lends more weight to the idea that some or even many people were motivated by racism. I think a large part of Trump’s winning comes from people seeing immigration as a zero-sum game. It’s hard to think of a country as anything other than a place with finite resources, even if economic growth and innovation mean the truth is actually more complicated. In that context, thousands of people continuously arriving at the southern border, Preston’s article said 250k arrived in one month when Mexico temporarily stopped patrolling, feels unsustainable and the root of all social and economic issues in a very grounded and common sense way, even if economists are telling you that’s not how it works. I also think about Trump winning in the context of the migrants we met in Brooklyn telling us that settled Latinos had been very unsupportive of them when they arrived. In spite of Trump’s white nationalism, I wonder if settled immigrants also see new arrivals as a threat to their resources. I also wonder if settled immigrants don’t like the fact that new arrivals draw attention to their own foreignness, so that they worry that they, too, will be perceived as non-immigrants in the same way. I think this would have been very hard to do, but I do think a consideration of immigration policy needs to consider what voters are associating with migration. For example, how much of the inflationary crisis was blamed on immigrants in voters’ minds?

The next big question is what is going to happen when Trump comes into power. I agree that the appointments of Tom Homan and Stephen Miller to the head of ICE and white house deputy chief of staff, respectively, indicate Trump intends to follow through on his campaign pledges. So, I suppose the question is how bad will the impact really be and will those impacts change people’s minds about immigration? Almost 50% of farm workers in the US are undocumented migrants, so there could very reasonably be food shortages or at least inflation. Will Trump be able to conjure a new enemy then?

I thought that Julia Preston’s piece was an extremely elegant and accessible look into the divisive choice that voters were making in regard to immigration policy during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. I found that the historical context, existing policies, the moral dilemma of immigration, misinformation, and ideological conflict of the issue were effectively condensed into an extremely easy-to-follow piece.

At a fundamental structural level, this article makes me think about the writing structure articles we are assigned for class. The piece starts with a lede that situates the reader in the present, and the most urgent issue of the article which is the impending decision that the American population had to make. Preston spotlights the central question which is that the views of Harris and Trump on immigration seem to have converged to a certain extent. However, she makes clear that this is only a surface level analysis of their take on border policy, and begins to delve into the main body of the article.

Once the reader has been taken through her outlining of migration policy history and each candidate’s vision, she returns to the starting idea of this decision–-one that initially seemed to be rooted in a clash of beliefs, but more fundamentally is established in “a battle of competence” between the two. I found that these insights really sorted out the questions I had about how different these administrations’ approaches to immigration were, and this wrapped the article up in a very neat way.

I do not believe that this piece is labelled strongly as an opinion piece, yet at times, to me it comes off as one due to how anti-Trump policy the messaging is within the writing. The core of the piece rests in a factual foundation: of how border strategy has evolved across these two administrations and the offensive, misleading rhetoric that Trump has spurred is quoted.

This led to me to think about a broader question about journalistic integrity, which is how journalists manage the seeping through of personal opinion within writing. Obviously, based on when we spoke to Julia Preston in New York, she was a strong advocate of the Harris campaign. However, with immigration correspondence covering the election, talk about “nativism” and Trump’s rhetoric has bred distrust within right-wing supporters; fact-checking is seen as a violation of free speech and rests at the core of a lot of right-wing criticism about how the presidential and VP debates were conducted.

A statistic that I found quite surprising and pivotal was the Gallup poll this July that revealed 5 percent of adults said they favored lower immigration, the first time since 2005 that a majority held that negative view. This echoes a global shift that is breeding an anti-migrant sentiment, so how much can this shift be attributed to the Biden administration’s failures at the border? How about to Republican efforts to spread this opinion, like Greg Abbott’s bussing efforts?

Upon searching for Manuel Monterrosa on Instagram or YouTube, viewers can scroll through several reels, pictures, and videos that show Monterrosa’s journey through the Darien Gap.  Manuel Monterrosa is a self-identifiable “migration influencer,” posting content related to migrating to the United States to better aid migrants attempting to complete the journey themselves. He explained that he began posting on these platforms during his original journey to the United States only to recognize the profitable aspect of his content. Not only that,  but Monterrosa takes pride in his 39.3k followers on Instagram and his ability to help other migrants. Using his platform to provide trustworthy information,  He emphasizes that social media has only aided in spreading misinformation regarding immigration. For many who need to get out of their country quickly, finding information on social media is the way to go. Despite platforms not necessarily being the most reliable source, for many migrants, relying on online content is a reality that comes with risks in a world of misinformation.

Monterrosa’s platform is part of a new series of migration influencers taking over social media. Not only are migrants like Monterrosa creating platforms to provide information related to migration, but immigration lawyers, nonprofit organizations, and policymakers are also part of the social media movement that has began to develop in recent years. Many individuals and organizations, like Monterrosa, use their platforms to diffuse misinformation and scams that migrants are vulnerable to. Some of these content creators have upwards of 300k followers, using their ability to reach various audiences and people to recognize proper steps about asylum cases, migrant routes, and misinformation.  Monterosso explains that content is often used to alert migrants of dangerous scams that rob them of their money or jeopardize their safety.  Specifically, Monterrosa elaborates on cases of mass scams circulating on TikTok that support hazardous routes to the United States for large fees.

Interestingly, so much speculation and rumors surrounding immigration laws and each candidate can be summarized relatively simply in one condensed paragraph. This paragraph covers not only the importance of immigration in this election but also the previous administration’s work in immigration and how it compared to Trump’s last term.

After taking this class and also immersing ourselves in various cities and speaking with migrants, so much emphasis has been distracted from these people genuinely just wanting a better life and wanting to find opportunities that allow them to become the best that they can be. Given that the backlog of asylum cases is such a massive issue as to why there are so many immigrants coming in undocumented, Harris’s plan makes the most sense, given what we’ve learned in class. Both from speakers, the people themselves, and from looking at statistics.

Whereas Harris’s motives with her campaign revolving around immigration seem reasonable and also rational, Trump’s plans seem extreme and rash. Focusing solely on just disregarding Immigrants as a whole and committing himself to the belief that all immigrants are bad for the United States, his work leaves no room for conversation. The facts, statistics, and rationale behind the role immigration plays in the country’s economy defuses the ability of the United States to want to limit legal immigration like his plan suggests. As someone who grew up hearing that the United States was a melting pot and the land “of opportunity,” I recognize that these trademarks that have shaped the United States’ image can easily be no longer under Trump’s administration.

The piece emphasized and elaborated extensively on the issue of the asylum cases and asylum process, given that there are so many applications and not enough court cases or lawyers to process all of the needed cases. By adding various policies and new standards, the article suggests that the real issue is the asylum process and how to apply legally. If there is no quick and efficient way to apply legally, people will enter the United States illegally. Then, there will be a separate wave of issues affecting other areas of the country and other elements of immigration. Another concern or point of interest that came up in this article is the fact that mass movements of migration have now also become points of monetary production. Migrants can use their services as guides along the Darien gap and additional routes as profit.

I also keep in mind that mass migration does not come from one particular area or country; it is an issue that occurs in various countries. With that said, there might be a variety of solutions that need to be proposed to be best able to accommodate all people and the United States’s ability to keep measures regarding immigration regulated.

When it comes to Trump’s piece, he is laying out the various new policies and loopholes he is attempting to use to reinforce measures regarding immigration that he hasn’t done before. So much of the article made me question how he will go about this issue differently this term compared to his first term. Especially with both the levels of mass deportation, he hopes to obtain in addition to new levels of legal immigration that he wants to put a stop to.