Controlling the Flow: Implications for Integral Immigration Policy

In 2019, I wrote this essay during my time in college after spending months traveling solo through Latin America—finally learning Spanish not just in a classroom, but through real conversations, border crossings, and shared meals. What started as a personal journey to understand culture, language, and identity grew into a deeper curiosity about immigration, policy, and the human stories behind the headlines.

This piece reflects the research and perspective I had at the time—rooted in history, facts, and a growing sense of responsibility to use my voice. While the sources are from before 2019, the heart of the essay remains relevant. The conversations around borders, belonging, and justice are still very much alive.

I’m sharing it now not because it’s perfect, but because it still feels important. I hope it offers you insight, sparks reflection, or encourages you to keep learning.

—Margarita

Abstract 

Immigration continues to play an essential role in transforming the culture within the United States. The current immigration system fails to meet the economic, social, and psychological needs of judges and the immigrants that must be processed within them. Increases in anti-immigrant rhetoric and nativism have incorrectly spread the assumption that immigrants negatively affect the United States’ economy. The recent government shutdown, increased priority for enforcement, and family separation have worsened court system backlogs and have threatened immigrant well-being. Policies that prioritize efficiency, humanization, and education of immigrant youth must be implemented in order to successfully integrate those who are often fleeing political oppression. In doing so, American society will be able to continue to reap the benefits that come with being a nation of immigrants. 

The movement of human beings across borders continues to shape the social, political, and cultural landscape of the world’s everchanging nations. According to the United Nations, 2017 experienced approximately 258 million international migrants and more than 760 million internal migrants globally (Suárez-Orozco 1). The factors driving immigration include fleeing violence, low wages, natural disasters, and limited opportunities in order to seek safety, higher wages, better access to resources, and improved quality of life. Within the United States, the population has been growing steadily, increasing from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 11.1 percent in 2000, and rising to 13.3 percent in 2014 (National Academy of Sciences 17). States throughout the United States have varying degrees of immigration influx. According to McKenzie and colleagues, the states with the most immigrants include California (4.1 million), Texas (2.5 million), New York (1.5 million), Florida (1.4 million), and New Jersey (767,000) (140). As increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric contributes to political polarization, immigration policy has been at the forefront of American attention. Research and various models serve to guide policymakers in this issue that influences life outcomes for millions traveling across United States borders. The United States should implement reformed policies to the flawed United States immigration system by hiring more immigration judges, providing financial support for Central American countries, and investing in the health and education of young immigrants. 

However, some research suggests that coming to a consensus regarding the issue of immigration remains unattainable. Increasing political polarization has made efforts to move forward at the federal level increasingly difficult. The Democratic party is known for leaning on the side of diversity and often agrees with the assumption that it is the United States’ moral responsibility to support those who are often escaping political oppression. In contrast, Republicans are known for leaning on the side of law and order, and often agree that the United States must uphold the legal terms of the Constitution when it comes to the issue of immigration. In 2005, Democratic and Republican voters were 5 percentage points apart in their favorability toward immigrants while polls in 2017 show that Democrats are now twice as likely as Republicans to say immigrants strengthen the country (Pew Research Center). Moreover, some conclude that immigration as it already brings a great benefit to those who are able to get granted citizenship and does not require change. According to Thompson, the “single most unambiguous, most uncontroversial fact about immigration is that it raises the living standards of poorer foreign-born workers” (Thompson). Essentially, those who see immigration reform as a non-issue highlight the evident benefits of contemporary United States immigration policy. According to a 2018 Gallup Poll, the issue of immigration ranks low on American policy priorities, putting healthcare and the economy ranked above immigration policy (Newport). This low prioritization among the American public makes it difficult to push new policies through legislation. Ultimately, some research suggests that the increasing political polarization and lack of prioritization among American voters make immigration reform impossible. 

Needs

The lack of judges within the immigration judicial system creates an ineffective citizenship process. A July 2018 report from the National Partnership for New Americans found an 88% increase in citizenship application processing backlog since 2015 (Venkataramanan).  Since the end of 2016, the backlog has grown to 293,000 cases, with California, New York, and Texas remaining as the states with the most cases yet to be resolved (Lu and Watkins). According to the Center for Immigration Studies, although there was a 17% increase in immigration judges to combat the backlog, the total number of case completions declined as case continuances increased by 23% between 2006 and 2015 (Arthur). Judges face increased rates of burnout due to higher demand in caseloads. Additionally, researchers conclude that if no new cases are filed, it would still take more than two years for immigration courts to combat the 809,041 cases that are still pending (Arthur). This backlog threatens the psychological well-being of those who wait. Asylum seekers fleeing political unrest are especially vulnerable to psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Berthold and McPherson 81). Many immigrants leave children and spouses behind and spend five years or longer waiting for asylum, threatening interfamilial relationships, the developmental health of their children, and their own mental health. As trends of backlog continue increasing, the need for more immigration judges is ever-pressing. 

The increase in detention rates puts a financial burden on taxpayers and traumatizes immigrants. The research concludes that approximately 400,000 immigrants are detained annually; these numbers are five times higher than before September 11, 2001 (Moinester 1). Texas, California, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana have the highest rates of daily detentions; with over 60% of immigrants detained in privately owned detention centers such as GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America (Zong et. al. 4). Taxpayers must pay more money in order to fund privately-owned immigration detention centers. The daily cost for one detainee within a private center costs taxpayers $149.58 in comparison to $98.27 per person per day within a federal system (4). Despite the higher costs, private detention centers have the highest prevalence of abuse cases. Detainees face inadequate access to medical care, exploitative labor practices, and abuse. LGBT immigrants are 15 times more likely to be sexually abused while confined, despite the Department of Homeland Security guidelines that state that they should not be confined due to their vulnerability to abuse (Juárez 74). To mitigate this issue, detention centers use solitary confinement, which is associated with “hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations, panic attacks, obsessive thoughts, and paranoia,” thus not effectively protecting immigrants (Gruberg 6). Once they are removed from the centers, individuals face “poor labor market prospects and discrimination” and struggle to integrate into American society (6). Ultimately, the immigration detention system is currently costing taxpayers steep amounts of money while failing to provide support for vulnerable populations. 

Failure to define asylum makes the result of cases inconsistent. Research has found an increase in asylum seekers, primarily from Central American countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as other politically unstable countries such as Syria and Iraq. More specifically, the number of asylum-seeking individuals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras has increased by 25% between 2016 and 2017 in response to extreme inequality, gang violence, and poverty (Cohn et. al.). The 1980 Refugee Act states that individuals can be granted asylum if they have been “persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group” (Mosaad). 

However, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),  there is no universally agreed-upon definition of persecution, which makes cases inconsistent. In 2017, the number of admitted asylees decreased by 37 percent from the year prior. (Martinez). Individuals struggle to provide evidence for their persecution from abroad, having to rely on physical or psychological manifestations of their trauma as proof, which must be reviewed by a healthcare professional in order to get approved (McKenzie et. al). Asylum can take between 6 months to several years and are required to be detained under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The asylum process lacks specificity and efficiency, thus unnecessarily prolonging immigrant integration.  

The perpetual xenophobia and discrimination within the United States stymie immigrants from being successful. Immigrants are impeded from assimilating into American culture due to factors including legal status, race, socioeconomic status, and low naturalization rates. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 allowed for openly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim dialogue to become socially acceptable within American political culture; research concludes that the 81% of white conservative Protestant Americans gave their vote to Trump and view nonwhite immigrants as a cultural threat to the dominance of white Christianity (Sherkat and Lehman 1801). White nativist Americans are driven to discriminate against immigrants due to concerns regarding economic competition, ethnocentrism, and national identity. Hostile attitudes have a multitude of negative effects on immigrants within American society. According to Hainmueller and colleagues, undocumented youth are legally excluded from American working-class life as their documented peers begin driving, obtaining jobs, and applying for college financial aid (529). As documented youth begin driving, getting jobs, and applying for college financial aid, their undocumented peers are legally excluded from integrating themselves into the American working-class life. Mann-Jackson and colleagues report that 84% of Latinos fear deportation, stating that “lack of required forms of documentation (e.g., valid driver’s license), interactions with law enforcement, and racial profiling have been linked with poor health outcomes among Latinos, including increased cardiovascular risk, drug and excessive alcohol use, and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder” (1938). Ultimately, American society fails to welcome immigrants, thus making economic prosperity, assimilation, and health outcomes difficult to maintain. 

Separating immigrant children from their families is inhumane and violates their human rights. In April of 2018, the federal government implemented the “Zero Tolerance” immigration policy that removed 2300 children from their parents between May 5th and June 9th of 2018 (Skelton 3). This policy was created in order to deter immigrants from entering within United States borders; however, these highly traumatizing experiences due to the new policy are a threat to human health. According to Colleen Kraft, President of the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP), family separation causes “irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short or long-term health” (Kraft). In addition to the new policy, in June of 2017, the administration ended the Family Case Management Program, which housed more than 630 asylum-seeking families together, catering to “special populations, such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, [and] families with very young children”(Bendix). In addition, researchers document the case study of Mirian G, a Honduran mother of an 18-month-old son who, despite showing the authorities several documents as proof of motherhood, was removed from her child and took 2 months to reconnect with him (Bendix). A federal government that systematically separates children from their families in order to deter immigrants from entering the United States is one that threatens the human rights of children.  

Chain migration increases rates of illegal immigration and negatively contributes to the immigration court backlog. Chain migration, or family reunification, is the process by which green card holders or legal U.S. residents may sponsor a family member for immigration to the United States (Guild). As immigration court backlogs increase due to the recent rapid influx of immigrants, United States policy fails to react accordingly to the demand for citizenship. Historically, instead of prioritizing citizenship based on potential merit and skill that immigrants can contribute to the country, the federal government has permitted increased amounts of chain migration. More specifically, the Immigration Act of 1965 extended chains to every country in the world and reversed priority from skilled immigrants to preference for chain immigration (Flores 46). This shift in immigration priority set the precedent for what was to follow in the years ahead. For example, the Immigration Act of 1990 permitted 480,000 family immigrants to enter the United States, while employment-based admission and visa lottery immigrants were only 140,000 and 55,000 respectively (46). This “snowball effect” results in a complicated system that fails to set limits on how many spouses and children under 18 years of age are allowed in the country (Burnett). This has led to an increasing number of undocumented migrants and mixed-status families within the United States, thus creating a buildup of immigration backlog that officials struggle to resolve. Ultimately, a policy that prioritizes chain migration contributes to a rapid influx of immigration that the current immigration system is not equipped to handle. 

Policy 

The federal government should provide more aid to countries that are fleeing political unrest. Countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as other politically unstable countries such as Syria and Iraq will continue to enter the United States. According to Rodriguez, who directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Homeland Security Department during the Obama administration, more enforcement is “somewhere between a placebo and a band-aid” in mitigating the immigration crisis (Breuninger). In order to address the root of the issue, providing financial aid to certain countries will benefit the United States in the long term. According to Erikson, homicide rates have dramatically decreased to 78% where United States Agency for International Development has had the resources to operate (Erickson). If increased, resources will allow humanitarian aid to support security, and economic development by combating violence, strengthening community programs for youth, promoting economic and agricultural development, and fighting corruption. In the past, humanitarian aid by the United States assisted Colombia towards political stabilization in the midst of militant control by a powerful drug cartel. Regilme states that “Colombia is stepping up efforts to export its ‘know-how’ to countries in Central America,” and now serves as an ideal “emerging international security cooperation model in which both Colombia and the United States play key roles” (345). In Colombia’s case, there is a clear association between the United States humanitarian aid and political stability. Humanitarian aid to politically unstable, Central American countries will positively benefit the United States’ immigration system in the long term. 

The United States federal government should hire more immigration judges. By doing so, more cases will be heard, thus facilitating the immigration process. The 2015 Fiscal Year Budget summary of the U.S. Department of Justice reports that adding 35 new Immigration Judge Teams and Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys will increase efficiency (U.S. Department of Justice 6). With greater efficiency, backlogs will decrease, thus strengthening system enforcement and shortening wait periods for court hearings. This will positively benefit policymakers and immigrants alike, as the system has faced increased backlogs in immigrants. With the new policy implementation, immigrants will be able to integrate within American society and provide for their families and contribute economically to the United States. According to Flores, this strategy would also allow the system to process more cases without “compromising the integrity of the nation’s asylum system,” which relies on immigration judges to hear asylum claims (1). By improving the speed of the immigration process, detention rates of asylum seekers will also decrease. The physical and mental distress that detainment inflicts upon asylum seekers will greatly be reduced. In addition, the partial government shutdown in 2018 has further increased the backlog, which creates more motivation for the federal government to implement policies to alleviate the issue. If the federal government increased the staffing of immigration courts, more cases will be able able to be processed, thus alleviating stress on both immigrants and federal judges. 

The federal government should make citizenship grants based on academic success instead of on a first-come, first-serve basis. Canada’s Express Entry immigration process serves as a model for policymakers. In this policy, immigrants fill out online profiles and are ranked on the probability of economic success and integration within Canadian society. Points are awarded to those who speak the national language and those with existing job offers (Campbell). Similarly, the United States can grant citizenship based on the likelihood of economic success, English proficiency, and existing job offers given to educated immigrants by American companies. Further, in recent years the government proposed the RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment), which focuses on reducing the influx of immigrants by making employment green cards points-based, similarly to Canada, setting the fiscal year limit for refugee admissions to 50,000 (Cotton). By reducing the influx of immigrants and prioritizing those who can successfully contribute to the American economy, the federal government can address the increasing court backlogs while expediting the process for those who will increase economic prosperity. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse by Syracuse University, there are currently 155,464 pending cases that have yet to be resolved (TRAC Immigration). Clearly, an expedited process is necessary in order to combat a large number of cases. Ultimately, the United States can use Canada as a model to streamline the process of immigration in order to increase efficiency and combat the increasing court backlog. 

By reimplementing DACA, which the Trump administration removed, immigrants will experience increased wages. According to Yoshikawa and colleagues, 5.3 million children and adolescents are growing up either with unauthorized status or with at least one parent who has that status (4). In order to combat this issue, President Barack Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012. This policy gave undocumented minors relief from deportation, renewable work permits, and temporary Social Security numbers; this policy allowed youth to obtain jobs, driver’s licenses, healthcare, and banking (Gonzales et. al. 1854). Under DACA, approximately one million unauthorized immigrants have temporary permission to live and work in the United States. Maan-Jackson and colleagues conclude that DACA recipients make positive and significant contributions to the economy, including higher wages, which consequently increases tax revenue and economic growth (1938). If DACA is reimplemented, youth can obtain legality and the skills required for advancement in the workplace. In fact, four of the five Americans who won Nobel Prizes in 2016 were immigrants, and 8 of the 41 Fortune 500 companies created since 1985 were founded by an immigrant (Frum). Research suggests that immigrants have motivation for success and if given resources, will be able to achieve their goals. By fostering success through policy as done previously by the Obama administration, an increased number of students will capitalize on opportunities that their previous illegality stymied them from obtaining within American society. 

By narrowing the definition of family, the federal government will be able to decrease the influx of immigration and increase support for developing nations. According to Zong and colleagues, the overwhelming majority of immigration backlogs were family-sponsored applicants (3.7 million) while about 121,000 were employment-sponsored applicants and their families (11). By reducing the definition of nuclear family members, the United States will be able to reduce the influx of immigrants across the United States borders, thus providing immigration judges time and resources to combat the increasing court backlog. In addition, scientists explore the future impacts of immigration policies such as the RAISE Act, which focuses on reducing total immigration by reducing the definition of ‘family’ to ‘nuclear family’. The researchers conclude that the RAISE Act will increase remittances that will likely reduce poverty, increase investment in human capital, or reduce consumption uncertainty in the developing nations that are receiving remittances from immigrants within the United States. For example, El Salvador received $4.6 billion in remittances from the United States, and if the RAISE Act is introduced, remittances are expected to increase by $490 million (Mukhopadhyay and Zou 16). Ultimately, research highlights the positive effects of only allowing nuclear families across the United States border, as this policy change will allow the court backlog to decrease while fostering economic support for developing countries. 

The government should shift from immigration enforcement to integration. Due to a lack of consensus at the federal level, states have enacted policies that vary greatly within the spectrum of enforcement and integration. For example, Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 allowed law enforcement to stop immigrants in order to check their legal status, a policy that “aimed at curbing the rights of people in the country illegally,” which was met with great resistance from immigrants rights activists, groups, and ultimately the Department of Justice (Duara). In 2016, Arizona announced an end to the extreme immigrant enforcement law. Given the recent trends, it is clear the federal government must adopt integrative policies in order to advance the well-being of its citizens. In contrast to enforcement, states such as California have adopted integrative policies. According to Mason, California has passed policies to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses, health insurance, and state financial aid for undocumented students (Mason). Contrary to enforcement policies, this integrative approach allows illegal immigrants to access resources that legal residents already have access to. In doing so, immigrants will no longer be stymied by their illegality when in need of basic medical care, transportation services, or financial aid. According to the National Academies of Sciences, integration improves educational attainment, occupational distribution, income, and language ability (3). If the federal government were to implement integrative immigration techniques similar to California, immigrant well-being would increase consequently. 

Benefits 

The United States would economically benefit from these policy implementations. By prioritizing skilled workers during the immigration process through technologically-driven immigration processes, the immigration system will be able to let educated individuals in at a faster rate, thus contributing to the American economy. For example, Canada’s Express Entry system allows “applicants for permanent residence with the greatest chance of economic success” by utilizing an electronic management system that allowed a 20% increase in skilled workers across its borders in 2016 (Campbell). In addition, by reintroducing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, youth will be able to contribute economically to the United States. Findings suggest that DACA has expanded and improved employment options for those involved. Gonzales and colleagues conclude that over 59% of survey respondents who took part in DACA obtained a new job, and 45% increased their job earnings (1852). As jobs for young immigrant youth are obtained, this will positively impact the economy. The National Academies of Science states that “the successful integration of immigrants and their children contributes to the nation’s economic vitality and its vibrant and ever-changing culture” (15). Ultimately, these approaches that have improved economic outcomes for others will benefit the United States. 

If these policies are implemented, immigrants will experience academic, financial, and psychological benefits. According to the National Academies of Sciences, integration improves the educational attainment, occupational distribution, income, and language ability of immigrants (3). A culture that fosters immigrant success will allow immigrants to obtain the skills that are required to be financially stable. In addition, Mann-Jackson and colleagues report that 84% of Latinos fear deportation, stating that “lack of required forms of documentation, interactions with law enforcement, and racial profiling have been linked with poor health outcomes among Latinos, including increased cardiovascular risk, drug and excessive alcohol use, and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder” (1938). These risks will diminish if integration becomes the priority of the federal government. In addition, by removing family separation, the psychological health of immigrant families will improve. According to Berthold and Pherson, “in addition to this right to basic safety, asylum seekers and their families are also entitled to enjoy the right to a family life” (81). By ensuring the basic rights of asylum seekers through reformed immigration policy, immigrants and their families will experience emotional and economic benefits. 

In conclusion, immigration reform at the federal level is essential in order to adjust to a changing political climate within and outside of the United States. While there have been minor attempts at immigration reform at the state levels, the federal government has failed to create a system that meets the financial and social needs of the country. At the federal level, the last major immigration reform was enacted in 1986, which made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants. It is clear that complete systematic change is required in order to address the rising rates of asylum seekers, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and political polarization. According to Yoshikawa and colleagues, there is almost no scientific literature addressing the causal effects of various policies on unauthorized individuals within the United States (Yoshikawa et. al. 14). Many suggest that more research must be done to solidify the objective understanding of how illegal immigration affects the well-being of the United States due to its increasingly controversial connotation within contemporary American culture. According to Mukhopadhyay and Zou, “immigration is social engineering,” and continues to shape the culture and identity of this diverse country (16). Action at community, social, and public policy levels could alleviate the detrimental effects on immigrants, while ultimately benefiting the nation’s identity as a whole. 

Works Cited 

Arthur, Andrew R. "The Massive Increase in the Immigration Court Backlog, Its Causes, and 

Solutions." Center for Immigration Studies, July 2017. cis.org. 

Bendix, Aria. “ICE Shuts Down Program for Asylum-Seekers.” The Atlantic. 9 June 2017. 

www.theatlantic.com. 

Berthold, S. Megan, and Jane McPherson. "Commentary: Fractured Families: US Asylum 

Backlog Divides Parents and Children Worldwide." Journal of Human Rights and Social 

Work 1.2 (2016): 78-84. Google Scholar. 

Breuninger, Kevin. “How Experts Would Fix the Broken U.S. Immigration System.” CNBC 

News, 20 June 2018. www.cnbc.com. 

Burnett, John. “Explaining Chain Migration” National Public Radio. 7 Jan 2018. www.npr.org. 

Campbell, Alexia Fernandez. “The Philosophical Differences on Immigration Between 

Canada and the U.S.” The Atlantic, 24 June 2016. 

Cohn, D., et. al. "Rise in US Immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras Outpaces 

Growth from Elsewhere." Pew Research Center, 2017. 

Cotton, Tom. “SE 354- RAISE Act.” United States Congress, 13 Feb. 2017. www.congress.gov.

Duara, Nigel. “Arizona's once-feared Immigration Law, SB 1070, Loses Most of its Power in 

Settlement.” Los Angeles Times. 15 Sept. 2019. www.latimes.com. 

Erikson, Erick. “I Must Dissent.” The Resurgent, 2 April 2019. theresurgent.com. 

Flores, Ramona, Santhiveeran, Janaki, Kim, Mimi, and Ranney, Molly. Immigration and 

Nationality Act of 1990; Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: A Policy Analysis. 2018, Dissertation. CSU Long Beach. 2018. 

Frum, David. “If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will.” The Atlantic, 10 April 2019. 

www.theatlantic.com. 

Gonzales, Roberto G., et al. “Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the Short-Term Benefits of 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 

58, no. 14, Dec. 2014, pp. 1852–1872, Google Scholar. 

Gruberg, Sharita. "Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in US Immigration Detention." Center for 

American Progress, vol. 1 no. 2, 2013, pp. 1-23. 

Guild, Blair. “What is Chain Migration?” CBS News. 29 June 2018. www.cbsnews.com. 

Hainmueller, Jens, and Daniel J. Hopkins. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A 

Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59, no. 3, 2015, pp. 529–548. Jstor.

Juárez, Melina, et. al.  "Twenty Years After IIRIRA: The Rise of Immigrant Detention and its 

Effects on Latinx Communities Across the Nation." Journal on Migration and Human Security vol. 6 no. 1, 2018. 74-96.

Kraft, Colleen. “AAP Statement Opposing the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act.” 

American Academy of Pediatrics, 15 June 2018. Google Scholar. 

Lu, Denise, and Derek Watkins. “Court Backlog May Prove Bigger Barrier for Migrants Than 

Any Wall.” New York Times. 24 Jan. 2014. www.nytimes.com. 

Mann-Jackson, Lilli et al. “The Health Impact of Experiences of Discrimination, Violence, and 

Immigration Enforcement Among Latino Men in a New Settlement State.” American 

Journal of Men's Health, vol. 12, no. 6, 2018, pp. 1937-1947. Google Scholar.

Martinez, Sofia. “Today’s Migrant Flow is Different.” The Atlantic, 26 June 2018. 

www.theatlantic.com. 

Mason, Melanie. “California Gives Immigrants Here Illegally Unprecedented Rights, Benefits, 

Protections.” Los Angeles Times. 11 Aug. 2015. www.latimes.com.

McKenzie, Katherine, et al. “Asylum Seekers in a Time of Record Forced Global Displacement: 

the Role of Physicians.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 34, no. 1, 2019, pp. 

137–143. Springer.

Moinester, Margot. "Beyond the Border and Into the Heartland: Spatial Patterning of US 

Immigration Detention." Demography vol. 55, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1147-1193. EBSCO. 

Mossaad, Nadwa. “Refugees and Asylees: 2017.” Homeland Security, March 2019. www. 

dhs.org. 

Mukhopadhyay, Sankar, and Miaomiao Zou. “Will Skill-Based Immigration Policies Lead to 

Lower Remittances? An Analysis of the Relations between Education, Sponsorship, and 

Remittances.” The Journal of Development Studies, 2019, pp. 1–20. Jstor. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Economic and Fiscal 

Consequences of Immigration. The National Academies Press, 2017. 

Newport, Frank. “Top Issues for Voters: Healthcare, Economy, Immigration.” Gallup, 2 Nov. 

2018. www.newsgallup.com. 

Pew Research Center. “Growing Partisan Gaps on Government, Race, and Immigration.” 4 Oct. 

2018. www.people-press.org. 

Regilme, Salvador Santino Fulo. “A Human Rights Tragedy: Strategic Localization of US 

Foreign Policy in Colombia.” International Relations, vol. 32, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 

343–365. Google Scholar.

Sherkat, Darren E., and Derek Lehman. "Bad Samaritans: Religion and Anti‐Immigrant and 

Anti‐Muslim Sentiment in the United States." Social Science Quarterly, vol. 99, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1791-1804. Google Scholar. 

Skelton, Ann. “Separation of Children from Parents in Situations of Migrancy: Avoidable 

Trauma.” South African Journal of Psychology, vol. 49, no. 1, Mar. 2019, pp. 3–6. Sage.

 Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. Humanitarianism and Mass Migration. University of California 

Press, 2019. 

Thompson, Derek. “How Immigration Became So Controversial.” The Atlantic, 2 Feb. 2018. 

www.theatlantic.com. 

TRAC Immigration. “Immigration Court Backlog Tool.” Immigration Backlog, March 2019. 

www.trac.syr.edu.  

U.S. Department of Justice. “U.S. Department of Justice Overview.” June 2015. 

www.justice.gov.

Venkataramanan, Meena. “A Shocking Increase in Citizenship Application Backlog.” ABC 

News. 3 July 2018. abcnews.go.com. 

Yoshikawa, H., et. al. “Unauthorized Status and Youth Development in the United States: 

Consensus Statement of the Society for Research on Adolescence.” Journal of Research 

on Adolescence, vol. 27 no. 1, 2017, pp. 4-19. Google Scholar. 

Zong, Jie, et. al. "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United 

States." Migration Policy Institute, vol. 26, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-18. Google Scholar.