US immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares42 Views

      in US Politics

      Mohsen Mahdawi, released from Ice custody, graduates from Columbia

      by

      Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, released just over two weeks ago from federal detention, crossed the graduation stage on Monday to cheers from his fellow graduates.The Palestinian activist was arrested by immigration authorities in Colchester, Vermont, while attending a naturalization interview. He was detained and ordered to be deported by the Trump administration on 14 April despite not being charged with a crime.Several students cheered for Mahdawi, 34, who was draped in a keffiyeh as he walked across the stage. He blew a kiss and bowed, one video showed. Then he joined a vigil just outside Columbia’s gates, raising a photograph of his classmate Mahmoud Khalil, who remains in federal custody.“It’s very mixed emotions,” Mahdawi told the Associated Press. “The Trump administration wanted to rob me of this opportunity. They wanted me to be in a prison, in prison clothes, to not have education and to not have joy or celebration.”He is one of several international students who have been detained in recent months for their advocacy on behalf of Palestinians.The Trump administration is attempting to deport them using an obscure statute that gives the secretary of state the right to revoke the legal status of people in the country deemed a threat to foreign policy.Mahdawi was released two weeks later by a judge, who likened the government’s actions to McCarthyist repression. Federal officials have not accused Mahdawi of committing a crime, but argued that he and other student activists should be deported for beliefs that may undermine US foreign policy.For Mahdawi, who earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Columbia’s School of General Studies, the graduation marked a bittersweet return to a university that he says has betrayed him and other students.“The senior administration is selling the soul of this university to the Trump administration, participating in the destruction and the degradation of our democracy,” Mahdawi said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe pointed to Columbia’s decision to acquiesce to the Trump administration’s demands – including placing its Middle Eastern studies department under new leadership – as well as its failure to speak out against his and Khalil’s arrest.Khalil would have received his diploma from a Columbia master’s program in international studies later this week. He remains jailed in Louisiana as he awaits a decision from a federal judge about his possible release.As he prepares for a lengthy legal battle, Mahdawi faces his own uncertain future. He was previously admitted to a master’s degree program at Columbia, where he planned to study “peacekeeping and conflict resolution” in the fall. But he is reconsidering his options after learning this month that he would not receive financial aid.For now, he said, he would continue to advocate for the Palestinian cause, buoyed by the support he says he has received from the larger Columbia community.“When I went on the stage, the message was very clear and loud: they are cheering up for the idea of justice, for the idea of peace, for the idea of equality, for the idea of humanity, and nothing will stop us from continuing to do that. Not the Trump administration nor Columbia University,” he said. More

    • 138 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      US House Republicans propose fees on immigrants to fund Trump’s crackdown

      by

      Congressional Republicans are proposing an array of new fees on immigrants seeking to remain in the United States in a move that advocates warn will create insurmountable financial barriers.Legislation moving through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives could require immigrants to pay potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars to seek asylum, care for a minor in the government’s custody, or apply for humanitarian parole.Republican lawmakers have described the fees as necessary to offset the costs of Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. But experts who work with immigrants say putting more economic pressure on people attempting to navigate US immigration laws could drain what little money they have, force them into exploitative work arrangements, or push them to leave the country altogether.“These are essentially a mask for targeted attacks towards some of the most vulnerable immigrants that we currently have going through our legal system right now: asylum seekers, children, survivors of crimes,” said Victoria Maqueda Feldman, director of legal programs at Ayuda, which assists low-income immigrants in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland.Trump has made it a priority of his administration to not only rid the country of undocumented immigrants, but also to stop many new immigrants from entering the country. The GOP-controlled Congress is negotiating what he has dubbed “one big, beautiful bill”, a huge spending and taxation package that includes provisions to turn his hardline immigration proposals into reality.Republicans are limited in what they can accomplish in Congress due to the Senate’s filibuster, which the Democratic minority can use to block legislation it does not support. The GOP is seeking to enact Trump’s legislative agenda through the budget reconciliation procedure, under which bills can pass with simple majorities in both chambers but must affect only spending and revenues – like fees.“This system has left these agencies with funding shortfalls paid for by American taxpayers,” said Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House judiciary committee. “The fees included in this bill will … allow us to make the necessary investments in immigration enforcement in a fiscally responsible manner.”Heidi Altman, vice-president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said the new fees appeared targeted at the sorts of immigrants that the Trump administration has prioritized keeping out, such as asylum seekers, who arrived in large numbers during Joe Biden’s term.“It’s part of the administration’s assault on humanitarian protections for immigrant communities,” Altman said. “This is an entire new way of thinking about fees as a penalty, essentially, for an immigrant status.”Under the bill, immigrants would have to pay $1,000 to apply for asylum, $100 to keep an application active each year as it makes it through the overburdened immigration system, and $550 for a work permit. People requesting humanitarian parole to enter the United States would have to pay $1,000, and abused or neglected children who qualify for a program called Special Immigrant Juvenile Status would have to pay $500. Immigration cases can take a long time to resolve in court, but if a defendant asks a judge for a continuance, they would have to pay $100 each time.These fees do not exist under current law, and the bill specifies they cannot be waived in almost all circumstances.The new fees are targeted at people, often relatives, who seek to sponsor children who crossed the border without a parent or guardian and wind up in the government’s care. In order to take custody of an unaccompanied minor, adults would have to pay $3,500 to partially pay back the government for the minor’s care, along with another $5,000 to ensure the child attends their court hearings, though that money can be reimbursed if they do.“In some cases, that would be placing $3,500 between a mother or a father being able to get their child out of government custody and back into their own home,” Altman said.The fees were proposed as the Trump administration looks for novel ways to push immigrants out, including by offering them cash to leave. The bill gives a preview of what more will come, should the president receive the tens of billions of dollars he has requested from Congress.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMore than $50bn is allocated in the legislation to construct a wall along the border with Mexico, as well as fortifications elsewhere. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will receive $45bn for detention facilities, $14bn for its deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire 10,000 new agents by 2029.For the low-income clients Ayuda serves, Feldman predicted that the fees “could amount to a complete barrier to forms of relief”.Some might be able to pull together the money, but “through means that could put them in greater danger. So, having to work under the table, putting them at risk for labor trafficking. They might have to take out loans that have very high interest rates, putting them at risk for having to pay off something that is very expensive.”The bill is a top priority of congressional Republicans, but its pathway to enactment is unclear. On Friday, rightwing Republican lawmakers blocked its progress through a key House committee, arguing it did not cut government spending deeply enough.Last month, when the judiciary committee met to approve the portion of the bill that included the fee increases, GOP lawmakers approved it quickly, with little signs of dissent. More

    • 138 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump officials reportedly consider TV gameshow with US citizenship as prize

      by

      The US Department of Homeland Security is reportedly considering an “out-of-the-box” pitch to participate in a television gameshow that would have immigrants compete to obtain US citizenship.Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin described the pitch to the New York Times as a “celebration of being an American” and said the show would include challenges based on American traditions.In a statement, McLaughlin said: “We need to revive patriotism and civic duty in this country, and we’re happy to review out-of-the-box pitches. This pitch has not received approval or rejection by staff.”News of the project surfaced as Donald Trump, himself a former reality TV star, carries out a sprawling immigration crackdown that has ensnared undocumented immigrants as well as lawful permanent residents, refugees and those with temporary status and pending court cases. In some cases, US citizen children have been deported alongside an undocumented parent.Overseeing the deportation effort as homeland security secretary is Kristi Noem, the former governor of South Dakota who has drawn sharp criticism for her “made-for-TV”-style approach to immigration enforcement. Shortly after she was sworn in, Noem appeared in tactical gear for a ride-along with immigration agents.She also traveled to El Salvador, where, well-coiffed and wearing a $50,000 Rolex watch, she posed in a notorious prison housing hundreds of men deported by the Trump administration without due process.The idea for the reality show was pitched by Rob Worsoff, the Canadian-born producer and writer who worked on Duck Dynasty, a reality TV show about a Louisiana hunting family popular with Trump supporters.In an interview, Worsoff told the New York Times that the proposal originated from his own experience with the naturalization process to become a US citizen. Describing the project, he said one of the challenges might center on Nasa to see which participant could assemble and launch a rocket first.The Wall Street Journal reviewed a 36-page slide deck laying out Worsoff’s idea, which he said he pitched to the department during the Obama administration and again during the Biden administration.According to the Journal, his proposal includes one-hour episodes and begins with immigrants sailing to Ellis Island, once a key point of entry for millions of people arriving in the US. Other challenges entail a gold-rush competition set in San Francisco and an auto-assembly-line contest in Detroit.The show would conclude with the winner being sworn in as a US citizen.“This isn’t The Hunger Games for immigrants,” Worsoff told the Journal, stressing that losing contestants would not face deportation. “This is not: ‘Hey, if you lose, we are shipping you out on a boat out of the country.’”The idea was first reported by the Daily Mail, though the department in its statement strongly refuted that Noem was aware of the pitch.McLaughlin said the department receives hundreds of pitches a year for potential television shows, including for documentaries about immigration and border-security enforcement operations as well as white-collar investigations.“Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval,” she said. More

    • 125 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration fires nearly 600 contractors at Voice of America

      by

      The administration of Donald Trump has terminated nearly 600 contractors at Voice of America (VOA), the US-funded international news network known for delivering independent journalism to countries with restricted press freedom.The firings, announced on Thursday, appeared to defy a recent court order requiring the government to preserve strong news operations at VOA. The US president has criticized the news network and accused it of spreading “radical” content.The cuts, announced on Thursday, affected mostly journalists along with some administrative staff and represented more than one-third of VOA’s workforce.Among those dismissed are journalists from authoritarian countries who now face deportation, as their visas are linked to their jobs at VOA.“Today is an incredibly difficult day as USAGM terminates many of our contractors who have devoted themselves to fulfilling VOA’s congressionally-mandated mission to deliver factual, balanced and comprehensive journalism to the world,” journalists with the SaveVOA campaign said in a statement. “Among those affected are J-1 visa holders who will be forced to leave the country within 30 days. Several of these journalists come from countries where they could be arrested or worse because of their reporting for VOA.”The group said the team was considering its next steps and remained “committed to the goal of returning all employees to their positions”.The administration cited “the government’s convenience” as the justification for the firings, taking advantage of the workers’ status as contractors rather than full federal employees.Michael Abramowitz, the director of VOA, called the move “inexplicable” and said he was “heartbroken” in an email to staff obtained by the New York Times. Abramowitz has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from closing VOA.The notification to employees told terminated staffers that they will be let go as of 30 May and instructed them to return their press credentials, badges and other VOA property by that time, according to the Hill.Kari Lake, a Trump ally and senior adviser at the US Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA, defended the decision as legally permissible. Lake had previously denounced the agency as “unsalvageable” and accused it of corruption without presenting evidence.The federal building that houses the VOA news outlet in Washington DC was also listed for sale on Thursday.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSenator Jeanne Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate foreign relations committee, issued a statement in response to the firings:“The Trump administration’s gutting of Voice of America threatens access to independent media in places where it is needed most,” the statement reads. “It deeply weakens a critical and cost-effective tool of American influence and soft power. If Voice of America is silenced, PRC and Russian propaganda and lies will fill the void. To add more fuel to the fire, Kari Lake’s recent announcement that the Voice of America will now become a conduit for One America News Network is a gift to Russia and propagandists everywhere.”She added: “Firing respected independent journalists and employees is as strategically shortsighted as it is heartless. The Trump administration’s efforts to gut and de-fund independent media will only harm the United States in the long run.”The firings are the latest in a string of moves by the Trump administration targeting independent news organizations. The Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee and the Project 2025 author Brendan Carr, has ordered investigations into NPR and PBS. Trump is also in an ongoing legal battle with 60 Minutes and CBS, and his administration previously barred the Associated Press from the Oval Office. More

    • 163 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Ice used ‘false pretenses’ for warrant to hunt for Columbia students, lawyers say

      by

      Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) effectively misled a judge in order to gain access to the homes of students it sought to arrest for their pro-Palestinian activism, attorneys say.A recently unsealed search warrant application shows that Ice told a judge it needed a warrant because the agency was investigating Columbia University for “harboring aliens”. In reality, attorneys say, Ice used the warrant application as a “pretext” to try to arrest two students, including one green card holder, in order to deport them.What the unsealed document shows is that the agency “was manufacturing an allegation of ‘harboring’, just so agents can get in the door,” Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said. “What Ice was actually trying to do is get into these rooms to arrest them.”The “harboring aliens” statute is applied to those who “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any immigrant who is not authorized to be in the US.The search warrant, which was first reported by the Intercept, relates to two Columbia University students, Yunseo Chung and Ranjani Srinivasan, whom Ice sought to deport over their purported pro-Palestinian activism.According to the document and other court records, agents had arrived at Columbia’s New York campus on 7 March to try to arrest Srinivasan but were unable to enter her dorm room because they did not have a judicial warrant. Two days later, on 9 March, agents arrived at Chung’s parents’ house to search for her, also without a warrant.On 13 March, an agent with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), an office within Ice, filed the application for a search and seizure warrant with a federal judge in New York, saying that it was investigating Columbia University for “harboring aliens”. The agent claimed he believed there was “evidence, fruits and instrumentalities” that could prove the government’s case against the university. The federal judge granted the warrant and agents subsequently entered and searched two residences on Columbia’s campus.After Chung, a legal permanent resident who has lived in the US since the age of seven, found out about HSI’s search, she sued the government to block its effort to arrest and deport her. In the original complaint, attorneys for Chung claimed the search warrant was “sought and obtained on false pretenses”. Srinivasan, a doctoral student on a student visa, had left the US by then rather than risk arrest.Despite entering the dorm to, as HSI says, investigate whether Columbia was “harboring aliens”, attorneys claim it was used as a pretext to gain access to residences they would not otherwise have been able to enter, in order to carry out the arrests.“The manner of execution suggests that the agents were searching for the two named students, including Ms Chung, and needed a lawful basis to enter the residences in the hope of arresting the students on encounter,” Chung’s attorneys wrote in the March complaint.Chung has since been granted temporary protection from deportation as her case proceeds.The deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said in mid-March that the university was under investigation “for harboring and concealing illegal aliens on its campus”.It is unclear whether Ice is still investigating Columbia University for “harboring aliens”. The New York Times recently reported that a separate justice department investigation is seeking a list of names of Columbia students involved in a protest group in order to share it with immigration agents.A Columbia University official with knowledge of the search warrant application said that university had not seen the document before this week, and that the university has complied with subpoenas and judicial warrants when “required”. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to requests for comment by time of publication. HSI referred all questions to the DHS.Since the Trump administration stepped into office, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has engaged in a little-used authority to rescind green cards and visas held by a number of students around the country who have been involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy. The state department has accused some of them of supporting Hamas, a US-designated terrorist organization, without providing evidence.“We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” Rubio said in March on X, formerly known as Twitter. Rubio personally determined Chung should be deported, a memo submitted in her case shows.As Wessler explains, even if the secretary of state revokes someone’s legal status, the government is required to engage in the lengthy legal process before attempting to deport them.But, he adds, the government’s attempt to use the “harboring aliens” accusation to enter the building is a worrying escalation by the Trump administration.“There is a lot of concern by people and organizations for [the Trump administration’s] extremely aggressive interpretations of the harboring statute,” Wessler said. “As this episode illustrates, those interpretations don’t hold up to scrutiny.”The ACLU submitted letters to universities and magistrate judges last month, warning them of Ice’s attempts to use similar accusations to justify judicial warrants.“A college or university’s normal conduct in providing housing and services to students does not constitute a violation of Section 1324” – the “harboring aliens” law, one of the ACLU letters states. More

    • 125 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      Venezuelans deported by Trump are victims of ‘torture’, lawyers allege

      by

      Lawyers for 252 Venezuelans deported by the Trump administration and imprisoned in El Salvador for two months have alleged that the migrants are victims of physical and emotional “torture”.A law firm hired by the Venezuelan government said that it had been unable to visit the migrants in the mega-prison where they are locked up.The lawyers are seeking “proof of life”, but say they have come up against a wall of silence from President Nayib Bukele’s administration and the Central American nation’s justice system.Grupo Ortega filed a habeas corpus petition with the supreme court on 24 March seeking an end to what it calls the “illegal detention” of the Venezuelans, but is still waiting for a ruling.“They are treating them like common criminals,” lawyer Salvador Ríos said, after the migrants were shown dressed in prison clothing, shackled and with shaved heads.“This is torture,” both physically and psychologically, Rios said in an interview with AFP.The lawyers delivered a letter in early May to Bukele, a key ally of Donald Trump, requesting authorization to visit the Venezuelans, but so far without success.AFP sought a comment from the Salvadorian presidency about the case and the lawyers’ efforts, but has not received a response.Félix Ulloa, the Salvadorian vice-president, told the French media outlet Le Grand Continent that his government merely provides a “service that we could call prison accommodation”.Trump’s administration has paid Bukele’s government millions of dollars to lock up migrants it says are criminals and gang members.Trump invoked rarely used wartime legislation in March to fly migrants to El Salvador without any court hearing, alleging they belonged to the Tren de Aragua gang, a charge that their families and lawyers deny.The Venezuelans, as well as 36 deported Salvadorian migrants, are being held in a maximum-security prison built by Bukele to house thousands of suspects arrested during his sweeping crackdown on street gangs.Images of the Venezuelans entering the Cecot mega-prison in shackles illustrate the brutality, Ríos said.“The damage is not only physical, but also psychological,” Ríos said.In their letter to Bukele, the lawyers sought permission to interview the prisoners, either in person or virtually, which could serve as “proof of life”.They asked Bukele to release the list of the 252 Venezuelans, something that Washington has not done either.One Salvadorian migrant who was initially incarcerated in Cecot – but in April was moved to a prison farm – is Kilmar Ábrego García, a US resident deported due to what the United States itself admitted was an administrative error.A Venezuelan identified in US court documents as “Cristian” was also mistakenly expelled.In both cases, US judges unsuccessfully ordered the Trump administration to facilitate their return to the United States.Volker Türk, the UN human rights chief, said this week that the situation “raises serious concerns regarding a wide array of rights that are fundamental to both US and international law”.“Families we have spoken to have expressed a sense of complete powerlessness in the face of what has happened and their pain at seeing their relatives labelled and handled as violent criminals, even terrorists, without any court judgment as to validity of what is claimed against them,” he said in a statement.Isael Guerrero, another lawyer with Grupo Ortega, described the detentions as “completely illegal” because the Venezuelans “are not being legally prosecuted in any court” in El Salvador.The firm’s head, Jaime Ortega, said they were “100% migrants”.“Not a single one of them is being prosecuted” in the United States for their alleged membership of the Tren de Aragua gang, he said.The fate of the Venezuelans now depends entirely on Bukele, as “the expulsion completely nullifies US jurisdiction”, Ortega said.In April, Bukele offered to trade the 252 Venezuelans for an equal number of political prisoners held by President Nicolás Maduro’s government. More

    • 113 Shares67 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge dismisses trespassing charges against immigrants crossing US-Mexico border

      by

      A federal judge in New Mexico on Thursday dismissed trespassing charges against dozens of immigrants caught in a new military zone on the US-Mexico border, marking a setback for Trump administration efforts to raise penalties for unlawful crossings into the US.Chief US magistrate judge Gregory Wormuth began filing the dismissals late on Wednesday, ruling that immigrants did not know they were entering the military zone in New Mexico and therefore could not be charged, according to court documents and a defense attorney.Assistant federal public defender Amanda Skinner said Wormuth dismissed trespassing charges against all immigrants who made initial court appearances on Thursday. The immigrants still face charges accusing them of crossing the border illegally.“Judge Wormuth found no probable cause,” Skinner said in an email.New Mexico US attorney Ryan Ellison, who filed the first trespassing charges against migrants on 28 April, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The so-called New Mexico national defense area was established in April along 180 miles (290km) of the border, and US army troops were authorized to detain immigrants entering the area from Mexico.A second buffer zone was set up in Texas this month. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth said in a social media post the military would continue to expand the zones to gain “100% operational control” of the border.US attorneys charged over 100 immigrants with crossing the border illegally and trespassing in the military zones in New Mexico and Texas. Potential combined penalties were up to 10 years imprisonment, according to Hegseth.But Wormuth pushed back against the charges for the immigrants in New Mexico, ordering Ellison on 1 May to show proof they were aware they entered the military zone unlawfully.Defense attorneys argued warning signs in the area were inadequate to inform immigrants they were committing a crime, a position Wormuth agreed with.“The criminal complaint fails to establish probable cause to believe the defendant knew he/she was entering” the military zone, Wormuth wrote in his orders dismissing charges.The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment. More

    • 138 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans say they want more American babies – but which kind?

      by

      Some of the children were too young to stand on their own. Instead, they sat on their parents’ knees or in their parents’ arms, waving American flags. Many of them seemed confused about what, exactly, was even happening.But these kids were in the midst of making history: their families were among the first to take advantage of Donald Trump’s February executive order granting white South Africans refugee status in the United States, on the grounds that Afrikaner landowners – who make up just 7% of South Africa’s population yet, decades after the end of apartheid, control about half of its land – are facing persecution. While the doors to the US refugee program have been slammed shut to virtually everyone else, these Afrikaners showed up in the US earlier this week, their refugee status promising a path to US citizenship.Days later, the Trump administration took a far narrower view of who deserves access to the American polity. On Thursday morning, a lawyer for the Trump administration argued in front of the US supreme court that the 14th amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the American-born children of “illegal aliens” – a view contradicted by more than a century of legal precedent.This split screen raises a vital question: is the Trump administration really interested in helping children and families flourish – or only the “right” families?Over the last several months, the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, families, and children have been pockmarked by all kinds of contradictions. The administration is reportedly considering numerous policies to convince people to have more children, such as “baby bonuses” of $5,000 or medals for mothers who have six or more kids. The Department of Transportation has issued a memo directing the agency to “give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average”. And JD Vance has proclaimed: “I want more babies in the United States of America.”These moves are, in part, fueled by the growing power of the pronatalism movement, which believes that the declining birthrate in the US is an existential threat to its workforce and its future.Why, then, does the government want to exclude an estimated 150,000 babies born every year?“It’s hard to look at any of these policies and not believe that they’re created for the purpose of satisfying a political base that was promised some sort of notions of recreating a nostalgia for a white Christian nationalist nation,” said P Deep Gulasekaram, a professor of immigration law at the University of Colorado Law School.If the fate of the US workforce is really of concern, experts say immigration could help grow it – but the Trump administration has taken a hardline stance against immigrants from the Global South and their children. The administration has not only reportedly turned the refugee agency responsible for caring for children who arrive in the US alone into an arm of Ice, but also slashed funding for legal representation of children in immigration proceedings. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are trying to block parents who lack Social Security Numbers – such as undocumented people – from benefiting from the child tax credit, even in cases where their children are US citizens.The Trump administration has also unveiled new screening protocols that make it far more difficult for undocumented people to “sponsor”, or take custody of, children who enter the US alone. Just last week, the National Center for Youth Law and the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward sued the Trump administration over the changes, which they say have forced kids to languish in government custody. Between December 2024 and March 2025, kids went from spending an average of two months in government custody to spending an average of six.“This administration has compromised the basic health and safety of immigrant children in egregious ways,” Neha Desai, managing director of children’s human rights and dignity at the National Center for Youth Law, said in an email.In March, KFF, a charity that conducts health policy research, conducted focus groups of Hispanic adults who are undocumented or likely living with someone who is undocumented. Many spoke of the effect that the Trump administration’s policies are having on their families and kids.“I have a six-year-old child. Honestly, I’m afraid to take him to the park, and he asks me, ‘Mom, why don’t we go to the park?’” one 49-year-old Costa Rican immigrant woman told KFF. “How do I tell him? I’m scared.”“Even the children worry. ‘Mom, did you get home safely?’ They’re already thinking that something is going to happen to us on the street,” added a 54-year-old Colombian immigrant woman. “So that also makes me very nervous, knowing that there might come a time when they could be left here alone.”The supreme court arguments on Thursday centered not on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but on the legality of lower court orders in the case. Still, some of the justices expressed concerns about what the case could mean for children.Eliminating birthright citizenship, Justice Elena Kagan suggested, could render children stateless. The high court needed a way to act fast, she said.If the justices believe that a court order is wrong, she asked, “why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action?”Both the historical and legal record make clear that the 14th Amendment encapsulates birthright citizenship, Gulasekaram said. But, he said, predicting the supreme court’s moves is a “fool’s errand”.“There’s really no way of getting around the the conclusion that this is a call to some form of racial threat and racial solidarity as a way of shoring up support from a particular part of the of the of the Trump base,” Gulasekaram said. “Citizenship and the acquisition of citizenship has always been racially motivated in the United States.” More