• U.S. counterterror officials see no signs of IS, al-Qaeda on southern border

    U.S. counterterrorism officials are sticking by their assessment that terror groups like Islamic State and al-Qaeda are not actively trying to sneak operatives into the country from Mexico, despite claims by the White House and Homeland Security officials that “the threat is real.” “We do not see any evidence that ISIS or other Sunni terrorist groups are trying to infiltrate the southern U.S. border,” a senior counterterrorism official first told VOA in November, while acknowledging the existence of “vulnerabilities at both our northern and southern borders.”

  • Unfounded myths used to justify policies of exclusion: Lancet

    Public health protection and cost savings are often used as reasons to restrict migrants’ access to healthcare or to deny them entry. Yet, as the new report lays out, the most common myths about migration and health are not supported by the available evidence and ignore the important contribution of migration to global economies.

  • Trump's emergency threat explained

    As the partial government shutdown stretches into the third week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would consider declaring a state of emergency in order to achieve his goal of building a wall along the southern border with Mexico. What would such a declaration mean?

  • Global migration rates steady since 1990, high return migration

    On today’s increasingly crowded globe, human migration can strain infrastructure and resources. Accurate data on migration flows could help governments plan for and respond to immigrants. Yet these figures, when available, tend to be spotty and error-ridden, even in the developed world. Researchers have developed approaches to estimate migration rates, but even the best of these rely on unrealistic assumptions about the mass movement of people and yield migration rates that can fall far below reality.

  • Biases against U.S. immigrants with non-anglicized names

    Immigrating to a new country brings many challenges, including figuring out how to be part of a new community. For some people, voluntarily adopting a name similar to where someone is living, rather than keeping an original name, is one part of trying to assimilate or fit in with the new community. According to a new study focused on the United States, where anglicized names are more typical, anglicizing ethnic names may reduce bias towards immigrants.

  • Extreme anti-immigrant views are now part of the mainstream political debate

    Extreme anti-immigrant views have gained legitimacy and become part of the mainstream political debate over the past ten years through a concerted push by anti-immigrant groups and political figures using stereotypes and outright bigotry to blame immigrants for various problems in America. A new ADL report examines how extreme views on immigrants and refugees have moved from the margins to being a centerpiece of the U.S. political debate.

  • Were women and children or a “mob” tear-gassed at U.S. border?

    In a briefing with reporters Tuesday, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials said what happened Sunday — when suffocating tear gas was fired by CBP officials against Central American migrants — was a “routine border protection mission against a violent mob of 1,000 people” (the Mexican government puts the number at 500). But the choking tear gas, known as CS gas, is considered to be a chemical weapon that was outlawed on the battlefield by the United States and other nations in a 1993 agreement.

  • New proof surfaces that family separation was about deterrence and punishment

    Just-releases government documents reveal that the underlying intent of the Trump administration’s brutal practice of separating migrant families at the border was, in fact, to deter additional immigration and asylum petitions. Beth Van Schaack writes in Just Security that this is significant, because Trump administration officials have earlier claimed that the forcible separations were mandated by law (thus necessitating congressional action to end the policy) or compelled by “national security” concerns. “We now know neither of these purported justifications is true—this was nothing short of a deliberate policy choice to brutalize parents and their children in order to stop others from seeking refuge in the United States,” Van Schaack writes. “This strengthens the argument I made in an earlier post that the family separation policy is a form of torture for both parents and their children.”

  • Why long-term separation from parents harms kids

    As a society, we often wax eloquent about how important it is to nurture, support and protect our children. The sad reality, however, is that all too often major, life-changing decisions are made without any consideration of their potential lifelong and devastating impact on kids. Case in point: children separated from their parents at borders as new immigration policies are debated. Separation from parents for even short periods can cause anxiety disorders that can last a long time.

  • Mexico says it would deport U.S. border-rushers

    The government pf Mexico has said that anyone approaching the border in a “violent way” will not be allowed to stay in Mexico. Forty-two refugees have been arrested on U.S. soil after running for the border.

  • Border wall came at high cost and low benefit to U.S. workers: Economists

    Researchers find the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which built a partial wall across the U.S.-Mexico border, had a negative economic impact on U.S. citizens. From 2007 to 2010, the United States built an additional 548 miles of fencing across the U.S.-Mexico border. The fence came at a high cost to American taxpayers and only minimally reduced unauthorized Mexican migration, according to the new research.

  • Federal judge blocks Trump order limiting asylum

    A U.S. federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from carrying out new immigration rules that would block asylum status for people who did not enter the United States at a designated port of entry. President Donald Trump issued the rule in a November 9 proclamation, saying it was necessary to deal with the expected arrival of thousands of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border who he said “appear to have no lawful basis for admission into our country.”

     

  • Trump signs immigration order to curb asylum claims

    The Trump administration has issued an executive order which would effectively ban migrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border from qualifying for asylum. The administration’s move comes as thousands of Honduran migrants are making their way north. The order means that the United States will no longer allow certain people who enter the country illegally to qualify for asylum.

  • Can birthright citizenship be taken away?

    University of Illinois labor and employment relations professor Michael LeRoy is an expert on immigration and employment law. In a recent interview, LeRoy discusses the implications of President Trump’s bid to potentially end birthright citizenship in the U.S.“After the Civil War, Northern lawmakers had a basic choice: Do we enact laws to end slavery, or do we go beyond and enact laws to achieve America’s ideal that “all men are created equal”? They said yes to both propositions, and part of this idea included birthright citizenship,” LeRoy says.

  • Rising ethnic diversity in the West may fuel a (temporary) populist right backlash

    When people’s neighborhoods or wider social contexts change in visible ways, as with increasing ethnic diversity, it can be disconcerting for established residents, and trigger perceptions of “threats” that evoke “backlash” political responses. Alternatively, the diffusion of ethnic groups may increase knowledge and tolerance. Drawing on a meta-analysis of studies on the topic, Eric Kaufmann and Matthew Goodwin argue that ethnic diversity transitions may contribute to a populist right backlash. However, such effects may be temporary.