Donald Trump issued more than 100 Executive Orders (EOs) on January 20, the first day of his presidency.

Chief among them was a series of EOs dealing with immigration/migration which – in the opinion of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) – represent an unparalleled departure from the values, principles and policies that have long affirmed the United States as a nation that welcomes immigrants.

In particular, NASW is deeply concerned about aspects of the EOs that include mass deportation and/or family separation; ending birthright citizenship; deploying military personnel to the border; and creating vastly expanded immigrant/migrant detention centers – especially family and child detention facilities.

By targeting mostly vulnerable individuals and families, the new administration promotes a climate of fear in immigrant communities – many of whom have lived and worked in the U.S. for decades.

Trump’s EOs focusing on undocumented migrants on the nation’s southwest border are mostly aimed at stopping the flow of unauthorized border crossing from Mexico, as well as asylum seekers presenting themselves on the U.S. side of the border reand questing legal entry based on conditions – such as violence – in their home countries.

Nations have the right to protect their borders, but NASW is against policies that disregard human and civil rights

We should be reminded that such border crossings are not new, and seeking asylum from violence and persecution is covered by American immigration laws. However, while we recognize that all sovereign nations have a right to secure its borders, NASW opposes the tactics and disregard for protecting human and civil rights that the Trump EOs present.

For instance, NASW takes issue with the following policies and procedures found in the immigration EOs:

– The EO dealing with the Militarization of border enforcement  states that the military must treat border security not as a law enforcement matter, but as  full-scale military campaign. The EO’s position represents a departure from an over 150-year-old policy that essentially forbade the use of the military for domestic operations. For that reason, the Trump administration intends to apply the 1798 Alien Enemies Act as the legal authority for employing the military for sealing the border. The act permits the president to target immigrants without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship. For this and other reasons, use of the military for border security presents significant challenges, such as:

• • Remain in Mexico policy – The Remain in Mexico Policy EO will require many asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico for their hearings in U.S. immigration court. This policy began and was implemented during the first Trump administration in 2019. The result was tens of thousands of migrants being held for extended amounts of time in Mexico. The main opposition to the Remain in Mexico policy are human rights violations that resulted from migrants being forced into squalid camps – often exposing them to violence from drug cartels, and sexual violence.
  • Family Separation owes its existence as a policy to the first Trump administration via the current “Border Czar, Tom Homan, and the White House Senior Policy Advisor, Steven Miller. This policy –  which was abandoned by the Biden administration – has been resurrected as a part of the Trump’s current mass deportation EO. Family separation is particularly insidious in its purposeful disregard for the life altering emotional and economic impact it has on migrant families and children.

NASW’s concerns about the overall mass deportation EO are directed not only to the administration’s approach to securing the southwest border.  We are equally concerned about the fact that once operationalized the mass deportation program could and will affect millions of people residing nearly every state in the union.

Immigration executive orders put vulnerable children at great risk

It is this wide breadth of individuals and families that will be caught up in this program that elevates NASW’s apprehension about its potentially destructive outcomes. NASW is particularly disturbed about the degree to which children with be directly or indirectly affected.

For example, there will be will severe threats and consequences to the safety and long-term well-being of millions of children who are members of mixed-status immigrant families, including children who are U.S. citizens. The data are clear, for example:

• About 360,000 U.S.-born children of parents with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and 300,000 U.S.-born children with at least one parent with DACA are at risk of losing a parent, given the incoming administration’s intentions to strip these statuses and make TPS and DACA recipients vulnerable to deportation.
• Even children whose parents are not at risk of being deported experience fear and anxiety because they do not always understand what form of status their parents may have.
• Two million children had at least one unauthorized immigrant parent in 2018. Eighty-five percent of these children, or 4.4 million, are U.S. citizens.

 Assocation is against stripping birthright citizenship

This leads to NASW’s strong objection to Trump’s EO that declares an end to birthright citizenship. First of all, there is no dispute among experts and scholars that birthright citizenship is a Constitutionally guaranteed right covered by the 14th Amendment.  Secondly, it is not coincidental that the birthright citizenship provision is included in one of the most important Constitutional amendments — that gave full citizenship to formerly enslaved African Americans The recognized birthright citizenship as an unassailable principle that affirmed the country’s commitment to equality.

That the Trump administration is attacking this principle as way to achieve its anti-immigrant goals is an afront to the Constitutional concept of equality, and the American value of inclusion. The idea of ending birthright citizenship is also in stark contrast to social work ethics and values.

In addition, NASW and the immigration community are deeply disappointed that Trump’s EO no longer requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adhere to the protected area policy  . To end this policy is unconscionable.  The decision will invariably result in emotionally and social anguish for families, children in mixed status families and to the communities in which they reside.

 Rescinding Protected Area Policies

With respect to the expected widespread undocumented immigrant raids, we only need to look back on the mass deportation raids that took place during the Eisenhower Administration in 1955  to realize how inhumane and unjust such actions are. This was the largest mass deportation in U.S., affecting about 1.3 million people. It is likely that the Trump mass deportation raids will be exponentially more disruptive for individuals and families .

In addressing such concerns for inhumane treatment and other abuses during Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids, the Biden administration created a protected areas policy. This policy prohibited (ICE) from conducting raids at such locations as churches, schools and hospitals.

However, to the deep disappointment of NASW and the immigration community, one of Trump’s immigrations EOs states that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is no longer required to adhere to the protected area policy. To end this policy is unconscionable.  The decision will invariably result in emotionally and social anguish for families, children in mixed status families, and to the communities in which they reside.

Resources

Brennan Center for Justice

The Alien Enemies Act

 Children Thrive Action Network (CTAN)

Toolkit: Protecting Immigrant Families Facing Deportation

 Immigration Hub (Amigos

 MEMO: Trump’s Day One Immigration Overhaul

 Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights

Trump Administration Civil and Human Rights Rollbacks

 National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

Trump’s Day 1 Executive Orders: Unconstitutional, Illegal, and Cruel

The Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, in recent weeks has found itself at the center of a storm fueled by baseless rumors and misinformation  about the absurd notion Haitians were capturing and eating dogs and cats.

This unfounded claim soon spread on social media, resulting in a series of threats and harassment, leaving many Haitian residents fearful for their safety . This blog entry aims to shed light on the lead up to these events, explore the impact on the Haitian community, and discuss the broader implications for Springfield and all migrants of color across the country as they grapple with the fallout from these damaging falsehoods.

It is important to know that the “damaging falsehoods” did not happen in a vacuum. They are part of an intentional campaign to target and disparage the close to 20,000 Haitians who have lived in Springfield for the past five years. What is certain is that the threats and falsehoods are motivated by racial animus. The purveyors of the malicious anti-Haitian misinformation used language that they know would stoke pre-existing racial tensions in Springfield. The accusations included statement posted on the internet that said Haitians are “illegal immigrants,” were “dumped” on Springfield without the community being informed of the influx, are responsible for “skyrocketing” HIV and tuberculosis cases, have driven up housing prices, and of course that they’re stealing and eating the city’s geese and household pets. All of which is untrue.

The racial motivation of these acts is evidenced by the fact that it has been reported that Neo-Nazi groups. For example, a  national Neo-Nazi group called Blood Tribe has taken credit for spreading false information with a specific objective of stirring racial conflict. In early September, Blood Tribe began posting rumors about Haitians in Springfield on racist websites  The Neo-Nazi group posted their hate-filled diatribe —which included many racial epithets— falsely describing incidents where Haitians “eat the ducks out of the city parks.”

Downtown Springfield, Ohio

This is where national politics enters the picture in a very reprehensible way. After former President Trump’s terrible debate performance, he apparently needed a distraction. That distractionhas become the growing migration controversy involving an “invasion” of Haitians into Springfield, Ohio. Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance leapt into that conflict wholeheartedly. By highlighting the most salacious aspects of the rumors and infusing heavy racial imagery, the Trump/Vance campaign made a conscious decision to dangerously stoke  racial tensions in the Springfield community for political gain.

Even when the mayor of Springfield and the Ohio governor – both Republicans – emphatically disputed the racist reports, Trump and Vance continued to stridently peddle bogus and inflammatory anti-Haitian nonsense. A direct result of  Vance’s massive distortion of facts, many Springfield institutions – including hospitals and elementary schools – have received violent threats targeting members of its Haitian community.

The decision to scapegoat Haitian residents of Springfield is the height of cynical political opportunism. This was recently reinforced when Vance added more discordant energy  to the issue  when he said,  “The media loves to say that the Haitian migrants, hundreds of thousands of them, by the way, 20,000 in Springfield, but hundreds of thousands of them all across the country, they are here legally.”

This too was a strategic falsehood designed to paint a picture of “dangerous” hordes of uncivilized Black people  posing not only a threat to Springfield but the rest of America. The key words in the recent statement by Vance were “they are here illegally.” This phrasing is meant to rile up whites locally (and nationally), and eventually justify  mass deportations similar to that found in Project 2025 .

This escalation by Vance was also strategically designed to stir up anger against Haitians by attaching the explosive term “illegal alien” to the image of Haitians being pet eating savages who, by the way, happen to be Black. This newest tactic had an additional, and more malicious intent, of expanding scapegoating not only to Springfield Haitians, but to all Black migrant throughout America, again with the objective of politically capitalizing on existing anti-immigrant sentiments.

In a recent speech on the topic, Vance doubled down on his distortions when he said “Well, if Kamala Harris waves the wand illegally and says these people are now here legally, I’m still going to call them an illegal alien…”

Not only was he openly seeking to exacerbate an already explosive situation, but Vance was fully aware that his untruths endangered the lives of thousands of innocent people in this country seeking asylum from rampant violence in their home country. To say that Vance lacks even a basic sense of compassion is a gross understatement.

The Distinction Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Designation as Legal Right

As was previously pointed out, the Trump-Vance campaign intends to weaponize the term “illegal aliens” in its attack on Haitians. Therefore, It is important that social workers and other who care about social equity fully understand that a vast majority of Haitians have been living in America for years and are currently in this country legally, covered by Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

TPS is a highly significant, long-standing policy created to respond to exactly for the situation that many Haitians find themselves in  – the threat of death or severe physical harm if they are deported back to their country of origin.

That Springfield’s Haitians are in the United States legally cannot and should not be an issue. But the Trump-Vance campaign actually think by perpetuating their lies, they will  gain a political clout. However, there are those who take the position that that the constant attacks on immigrants and the rising tensions in Springfield and around the country could be a net negative for Trump . We can only hope that the this deeply troubling and divisive strategy will fail.

Intersection of Racial Disparities in Treatment of Black Immigrants and Springfield

In many ways, the racially motivated harassment of Haitians in Springfield intersects with historic systemic racial disparities that plagued the U.S. immigration system for many years.

Numerous advocates for immigration reform advance the position that America’s immigration system was designed, from its inception, to keep Black immigrants out . These advocates go on to state that today’s immigration system – starting with the asylum process and detention centers and ending in immigration courtrooms – continues to make use of historical mechanisms for denying Black people entry to this country.

The intersection of Springfield and systemic discrimination against Black migrants can be found in an incident that occurred in the 1980s. At that time, the U.S. government sent its Coast Guard to block 23,000 Haitians fleeing Jean-Claude Duvalier’s repressive regime from reaching the U.S. border.

An abandoned boat used by Haitian migrants at Naval Station Key West. Photo from Library of Congress.

Of the 23,000 people who sought entry, only eight were granted asylum. This was completely contrary to our nation’s asylum law that says:   In the United States, individuals have the legal right to seek asylum if they fear persecution in their home country due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The Haitians in the 1980s traveled to the United States in overcrowded boats, had little food and fresh water, and were physically exhausted. Yet, the U, S. government – even for humanitarian reasons – prevented then from touching American shores knowing that if they did do, the government was required by law to grant them entry for an asylum hearing.

Other incidents of unequal treatment of Black migrants include being disproportionately arrested by police and convicted for minor crimes and receiving disproportionately longer sentences by judges. Black migrants are also more likely to be put in immigrant detention centers, detained longer than their non-Black counterparts, and six times more likely to be subjected to solitary confinement.

The disparate treatment of Haitians in Springfield and the scapegoating by politicians of migrants, and particularly Black migrants, has a long history.  This underscores the need for Congress to pass  comprehensive immigration (and migrant) reforms  that include laws and policies that are devoid of racial biases.

In the meantime, the National Association of Social Workers and its allies in the immigration rights and human rights community will be uncompromising in its condemnation of Trump and Vance’s unconscionable disregard for upholding one of the primary tenets of America’s democracy – the guarantee of racial and ethnic equity and a commitment to protecting human rights.

Unauthorized entry of migrants into the United States along the country’s southern border has long been a contentious issue. That contention has intensified over the last decade — with Texas often being the center of controversy.

Texas is again in the immigration spotlight with passage of highly controversial Senate Bill 4 (SB 4). This legislation, if enacted, would put immigration enforcement authority at the state level instead of federal.

Specifically, the legislation would:

• Make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer has probable cause to believe a person crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor or the charge could be increased to a second-degree felony if the person is a repeat offender.
• Allow judges to drop charges if the migrant agrees to return to their country of origin.
• Require state judges to issue an order for police to transport migrants to a port of entry if they are convicted and have served their sentence. Migrants who refuse to return to their country of origin could face a felony charge.
• Prohibits police from arresting migrants in public or private schools; churches or other places of worship; or health care facilities or facilities that provide forensic  examinations of sexual assault survivors. However, the bill would allow arrests on college or  university campuses.

To many, designating this important and politically sensitive role to law enforcement is problematic, especially because SB 4 allows untrained police officers to engage in immigration enforcement. Such training is necessary because there are numerous provisions in SB 4 that lack clarity. One of the gaps is the absence of immigration due process protections. Process issues aside, there is also uneasiness among advocates and within affected communities about the immediate impact of the bill should the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) permit SB 4 to be implemented.

These effects include:

Racial Profiling

An environment of racial profiling emerges whenever there is a policy that tolerates indiscriminate apprehension and detention. As stated by the We will Resist Campaign Coalition: “It [the law] will unconstitutionally grant state law enforcement the authority to deport people without due process leading to increased racial profiling of Black and Brown communities throughout the state. The suffering Texas leadership is willing to inflict on immigrants in their effort to override federal immigration law should give all Texans, regardless of background or party affiliation, reason for concern.”

An ICE agent

Compromised Public safety

Because much of the contact with suspected undocumented individuals under SB 4 will be with local law enforcement, there will likely be an impact on public safety. Even in communities where there are good relationships with the police, their expanded role in enforcing immigration violations will certainly sour those ties. SB 4 conflates the role of traditional local law enforcement with that of often feared U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. As a result, unauthorized migrants, their families, and other members of their communities will transfer the fear of interacting with ICE agents to police officers, which could lead to a reduction in crime reporting and an erosion in public safety.

Detention/ Family Separation

SB 4 also authorizes police to arrest, detain, and deport families with children. Holding families in detention centers has been a controversial immigration/asylum seeker policy for many years. It is likely more families will be caught up in immigration enforcement due to SB 4, which will lead to a significant increase in the demand for family detention beds. However, there does not appear to be a contingency plan from a budget and programmatic standpoint that anticipates such an influx of families and children. The absence of comprehensive planning for families and children raises fears of a return to cruel family separation policies seen during the Trump Administration.

There is vague language in the Texas House report on SB 4 that says police are allowed to turn migrant families over to Border Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents. The wording of this procedure sounds discretionary without any mandates for police to hand families over to Border Patrol. However, language in the House report does make clear that preventing family separations is not a high priority for SB 4.

Impact on Service Providers to Migrant and Immigrant Communities, including Social Workers

SB 4 impacts not only immigrants but all Texans, creating an environment of fear and mistrust. It has consequences that touch health care, social services, education, and the lives of everyday citizens. With that in mind, we must be concerned that non-governmental providers – including social workers – may suffer collateral damage under the law.

An example is the recent order issued by the Texas Office of the Attorney General for a local nonprofit shelter provider to turn over case records of suspected undocumented migrants. The nonprofit filed a challenge to the order. Instead of allowing the case to be resolved by the court, the Attorney General’s Office threatened to criminally charge the organization with offenses, which included smuggling people across the southern border and operating a stash house . This was an attempt to intimidate not only the nonprofit organization, but other professionals and programs that serve migrants regardless of their legal status.

National Implications of SB 4

While SB 4 is primarily a state issue, it has national implications. In line with a growing movement toward states’ rights in governing, SB 4 is one of a number of Texas challenges to constitutional boundaries regarding immigration. In our current, divisive political environment, other states with strong states’ rights agendas will likely mimic SB 4. Aside from creating a fragmented immigration system, such laws will threaten the constitutionally protected civil and human rights of vulnerable people such as asylum seekers and migrant children. The most immediate guardrail against this threat is our federal court system. The hope is that the SCOTUS will uphold the U.S. Constitution and keep immigration enforcement at the federal level.

Resources

American Civil Liberties Union – Texas Know Your Rights under Texas’ Deportation Scheme SB 4
National Immigration Forum – 5 Things to Know About Texas’ SB 4
NASW-Texas Chapter

For more than two years, children and families fleeing danger have been turned away at the U.S.-Mexico border without a chance to seek asylum under a misguided policy called Title 42. Last week, the Biden Administration announced that it would be expanding the policy to include Venezuelans.

Title 42, which was put into place by the Trump Administration in 2020, allows border officials to expel migrants automatically without screening them for asylum. Although the measure was touted as a way to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the efficacy in doing that has been widely debunked by public health experts. In reality, the policy has caused devastating harms to families–especially Black and brown families–seeking refuge in the United States.

Recent investigations have revealed that even infants and toddlers have been expelled by U.S. border security under Title 42 into Mexico, exposing them to human rights abuses–including kidnapping and murder. As of May 31, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has expelled more than 30,000 children under the age of three to Mexican border cities. Forty-one percent of these expulsions occurred at midnight or later.

It is important to note that the Biden Administration ended Title 42 for unaccompanied immigrant children. More than 12,000 children in fiscal year 2021 entered the country as unaccompanied minors after previously being expelled under Title 42, typically having first entered with their parents. Thus, parents are forced to make the impossible decision between sending their kids alone into unknown circumstances in the United States or staying together in places where they continue to lack shelter and other critical resources and are exposed to danger. When children are separated from their families, they experience trauma that has long-term consequences on their health and development.

Moreover, the Title 42 policy has further exposed racism in our immigration system. Nearly 2 million Black or brown Mexican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian migrants have been expelled under Title 42, while other groups of asylum-seekers, such as white Ukrainians, have been entirely excluded from the policy. Migrants in U.S. custody, particularly Haitian migrants, have reported suffering severe human rights violations at the hands of immigration officers. About 20 percent of Haitians expelled under Title 42 are children, including many under two years old.

The Biden Administration has made attempts to end Title 42 in the past, with its efforts largely being enjoined in the courts. However, the recent expansion of the policy to encompass Venezuelans represents a departure from its claims to restore asylum in the United States.

Each day Title 42 remains in place brings us further away from realizing a vision for a just and humane immigration system.

As professionals who work with recently arrived and immigrant families, as well as unaccompanied immigrant children,  social workers have first-hand experience observing the negative mental and physical impacts that draconian immigration enforcement policies have on children. Now is the time to speak up against Title 42.

Learn more:

• Children and Families Must Have Access to Asylum: Threats to Asylum are Threats to Children’s Safety (Children Thrive Action Network)
• Title 42 and Impact on Haitian Refugees (National Association of Social Workers)
• Title 42 and its Impact on Migrant Families (Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Advocates Concerned With Title 42 Expansion Despite Exemptions for Some Venezuelans (Welcome With Dignity)
• Letter to Secretary Mayorkas on Title 42 Expansion (Human Rights First)

Disclaimer: The National Association of Social Workers invites officials from social justice and other organizations to share their expertise. This blog was prepared by Hannah Liu and does not necessarily reflect the view of the National Association of Social Workers.

If there was ever a perfect place to study immigration social work—especially in light of the ongoing influx of migrants into the U.S.—it would have to be Texas. So how are different social work schools there addressing this increasingly important subject area?

Special coursework on immigration would seem a natural, but the subject is already baked into the curricula at most Texas social work schools.

At the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), in an area that’s 85 percent Hispanic, the BSW course “Introduction to Social Work” includes a heavy dose of “U.S.-Mexico border realities,” says Eva M. Moya, interim chair and associate professor of the Department of Social Work—and “Social Work in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” is a required course.  

Moya’s own MSW class “Macro in Multicultural Practice” features “a lot of immigration/migration and human rights content,” she adds. 

Associate professor Karina A. Gil, director of Hispanic-serving Our Lady of the Lake University’s Worden School of Social Service in San Antonio, says, “Immigration has been one of the issues that affect the Hispanic population, so it is embedded in our courses, from policy to case management.” The same goes for the School of Social Work at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), where Dr. Luis R. Torres-Hostos, founding dean and professor, calls both the region and school curricula binational. “In many of the courses in family therapy, individual therapy, etc., the assignments are focused on understanding the immigrant experience, particularly trauma—not only back in their countries of origin but on their way here as well.” 

Read the full story in NASW’s Social Work Advocates magazine. 

Family reunification following migration-related separations is often challenging for immigrant youth as they adjust to their new environment and reacquaint with their caregiver. Scant research has explored the experiences of family reunification specifically for unaccompanied immigrant youth.

A recent issue of the journal Social Work Research, co-published by NASW and Oxford University Press, showcases a study of family reunification experiences. This study was a secondary analysis to explore the complexities of family reunification through the lens of attachment theory and family systems. Data were collected from 30 youth, six parents, and four school administrators via focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Unaccompanied immigrant youth had arrived at the United States in the previous three years from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, or Mexico. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. (In theoretical thematic analysis, rather than imposing a preset coding schema, recurring topics that answer the research question are identified in the narratives and may be used to create a codebook. In this study, the team independently read through the transcripts in search of family-related challenges that unaccompanied immigrant youth face following reunification with a parent or guardian.)

The results showed that the youth struggled to reconnect with their parents due to prolonged separations, which contributed to loneliness and feelings of loss. Parent–child attachment disruptions contributed to problems related to relationships among family members, traditional family roles and hierarchies, and new family constellations (e.g., blended families). In addition, the results point to the importance of developing interventions to increase trust, empathy, and communication between unaccompanied immigrant youth and their parents.

***

Study Authors:

• Liza Barros-Lane, PhD, LMSW, assistant professor of social work, University of Houston-Downtown
• Kalina Brabeck, PhD, professor, counseling, Rhode Island College
• Jodi Arden Berger Cardoso, PhD, MSSW, associate professor, Graduate College of Social Work, University of Houston

 ***

The journal Social Work is a benefit of NASW membership. It is available online or, at a member’s request, in print. Children & Schools, Health & Social Work and Social Work Research are available by subscription at a discounted rate for NASW members, either online or in print.

Learn more about the NASW Press journals and subscriptions.

The U.S. District Court in Houston on July 16 issued a decision that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program is unlawful, thereby partially halting it.

The decision declaring DACA unlawful is based on flawed legal interpretation but more than that it punishes millions of DACA recipients and their families. In essence, the ruling halts new and pending applications to the DACA program, thereby leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families in limbo. It is important to emphasize that most DACA recipients have grown up in the United States and have embraced the country’s values and opportunities. Without a doubt they and their families have made many contributions to our economy and culture.

It is unacceptable that this ruling means that millions of people will be placed in a precarious and unclear existence. The fact is the DACA program is a proven success. Instead of curtailing the program, it is time to build on that success and to create a long-term solution to immigration-related problems.

It is commendable the Biden-Harris Administration plans to appeal the DACA ruling. It is also commendable that the administration has asked Congress to use the legislative process of reconciliation to continue to protect DACA eligible. Now it is up to congressional leaders to remain committed to securing a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and Dreamers.

This qualitative study, using the extended case method, examined one suburban school district’s efforts to promote racial equity and focused particularly on how professional development was experienced by school personnel and on the perceived outcomes. Data sources for this study included focus groups with teachers, pupil personnel services professionals, and other school staff and administrators as well as observational data from participation in district events and meetings.

This study was grounded in Gloria Anzaldúa’s nepantlera framework, which conceptualizes the in-between space between two or more cultures and those who occupy that space as “border crossers,” and nepantleras as cultural navigators, bridge builders, and advocates.

‘Nepantla is a concept used in Chicano and Latino anthropology, social commentary, criticism, literature and art. It represents a concept of “in-between-ness.” Nepantla is a Nahuatl word which means “in the middle of it” or “middle.”‘ Wikipedia: Napantla.

Nepantleras are advocates and intermediaries who navigate the in-between, “overlapping and layered” cultural spaces and realities of different cultures. They serve as change agents with the goal of inspiring others toward greater cultural awareness. In this sense, they are true bridge builders between members of the majority population and those living in the margins, or what Anzaldúa referred to as the “borderlands”.

The researchers noted themes including:

• perceptions of the district’s level of commitment to racial equity;
• common barriers to facilitating racial equity training, such as white racial prejudice, resistance, and defensiveness; and
• the challenge of navigating self- and student social identities for teachers and staff of color.

Finally, the article discusses implications for equity work in schools and the role of school social worker training.

The study’s authors are:

• Leticia Villarreal Sosa, PhD, is professor, School of Social Work, College of Applied Social Sciences, Dominican University, River Forest, Illinois.
• Michelle Martin, PhD, is assistant professor, Department of Social Work, California State University, Fullerton.

***

The journal Social Work is a benefit of NASW membership. It is available online or, at a member’s request, in print. Children & Schools, Health & Social Work and Social Work Research are available by subscription at a discounted rate for NASW members, either online or in print. You can find out more about the journals and subscriptions at this link.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors arrived in the U.S. in February.

Shortly after Election Day, the new Biden-Harris Administration announced that immigration reform was one of its highest priorities. President Biden also pledged to rescind the inhumane asylum-seeker policies of the Trump administration ― the “remain in Mexico policy.” In February, the administration announced it would accept unaccompanied children, a reversal of Trump-era policy.

As social workers, we should be concerned about the welfare and protections of children. It should be noted that many of these children have been stranded in Mexico for a year, despite federal law granting them the right  to seek asylum at the U.S, border.

However, in a classic case of the law of unintended consequences, the administration’s good intentions have resulted in a looming crisis—a massive number of unaccompanied migrant children presenting themselves at the border seeking asylum.  This influx was triggered by asylum seekers in Central America having anticipated the end of the “remain in Mexico policy” and began making the long trek to the U.S. border.

Border patrols intercepted more than 9,400 unaccompanied migrant minors crossing the border in  February. The February data was the highest monthly total in border crossings by unaccompanied minors since a surge in migration began in the spring of 2019. The continuation of this significant spike has strained government resources and placed the Biden administration in the position of appearing to be unprepared for a surge that some say should have been anticipated.

While Department of the Homeland (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently announced new plans to accommodate increasing numbers of children arriving on the southern border, his announcement is in the face of  the Biden administration coming under fire and being accused of detaining children in inhumane conditions. The paradox of having their asylum policies seen as being the same as the previous administration is something that President Biden must address immediately.

It is a positive step that Mayorkas is opening new temporary influx center in Arizona to house the asylum seekers. Other centers are opening in Carrizo Springs, Dallas, and Midland, Texas. Though these facilities will not have the same oversight as permanent shelters operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, they are much better alternatives for housing and caring for children than U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) intake facilities― which were designed for single adults.

More than  4,200 children were reportedly being detained in those facilities. The concern is that most of them remained beyond the 72-hour limit― as dictated by the Flores Settlement ― before being transferred to Health and Human Services (HHS) custody. This means that some are sleeping on gym mats with foil sheets and have not been permitted to go outside for days at a time.  An exacerbating factor to finding shelter space is the reduced capacity because of social distancing policies associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In order to be in compliance with the 72 hours retention limit, DHS intends to open new processing centers jointly operated by CBP and HHS. This plan will place children in HHS care immediately after Border Patrol encounters them. HHS also seek to open additional, temporary housing where unaccompanied children can be placed until they are released to family members in the United States or placed in foster care. The immediate dilemma for the administration is ensure they are treated humanely and locate housing.

A further step by the Biden administration to avert a humanitarian calamity was to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  to improve the process for managing the increasing number of unaccompanied migrant children entering U.S. border custody―primarily to respond to the reported overcrowding in Border Patrol holding facilities. FEMA states it will work with the HHS to “quickly expand capacity for safe and appropriate shelter, and provide food, water, and basic medical care.” Again, it is critically important that the administration coordinate with all relevant government agencies to gain control of the situation.

Addressing Root Causes of Mass Migration of Unaccompanied Migrant Children

There are many reasons why these children leave their homelands. Many are from families caught up in desperate socioeconomic conditions that include COVID-related economic crises; hurricanes that struck their countries late last year; gang violence, government corruption; and crop failures due to regional climate change. In fact, the proposed U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021  speaks directly to the importance of focusing on the root causes of migration.

One possible way reduce the number of asylum seekers making the arduous journey is to have them apply for asylum in their home countries –an Obama-era policy discarded by Trump. The new administration states that it will work with Central America’s “Northern Triangle” countries — Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — to create processing centers in those countries that would screen migrants to see if they are eligible for humanitarian protections, including asylum.

The bottom line is that while it is a mistake to equate the Biden administration’s asylum-seeking policy with the callous Trump family separation approach, the administration does have a serious problem on its hands.

Social workers should be equally invested in urging the Biden-Harris administration to institute policies for unaccompanied migrant children and asylum that adhere to international humanitarian standards.

The incoming Biden-Harris Administration’s firm commitment to immigration reform and making it one of the first issues they addressed on their first day in office is a welcome turn of events. By  all accounts, the administration has come up with an  ambitious immigration legislation plan. In addition, Biden had already begun the process of rescinding  many of Trump’s immigration policies, such as ending Muslim Ban,  halting work on the southern border wall, and reversing plans to exclude undocumented people from being included in the 2020 Census. Biden’s executive order also  declared a 100-day deportation moratorium  affecting  many, but not all, undocumented immigrants.

While the reversals of Trump’s unfair and racist detention and travel policies were celebrated by immigration justice advocates, we must express our deepest disappointment that many will not benefit from the temporary hold on deportations. Primarily, those not included in the 100-day moratorium were barred for being national security risks or have arrest for a criminal offense, no matter how minor. Too often those categorized as criminal risks are people who are Black or Brown. The Biden administration must end the long history (of other administrations) of using public safety and national safety as pretext for criminalizing those classes of immigrants.

On the legislative front, Biden announced his plan to introduce a comprehensive new immigration bill. The basics of the legislation is to create a less restrictive path to citizenship for more than 10 million undocumented immigrants. Although Biden has a Democratic House and Senate to work with, the slim majority in both bodies means that getting a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed into law is going to be difficult. If Senator Marco Rubio’s statement , “There are many issues I think we can work cooperatively with President-elect Biden, but a blanket amnesty for people who are here unlawfully isn’t going to be one of them,”  is any indication reform will be hard fought.

An area where the Biden immigration team has been somewhat lukewarm is its lack of immediate support for immigrants in the country under the Temporary Protective Status (TPS) program. The administration acknowledges the vulnerability of TPS residents. However, instead of issuing an executive action to extend TPS for those whose status is expiring,  the administration vaguely mentions including such individuals in a possible legislative solution. Because of the high number of TPS immigrants from African countries, advocacy organizations representing Black immigrants are rightfully pressing Biden to consider an executive order to address their concerns of being deported.

All things considered, the Biden-Harris administration has effectively delivered a message that it is committed to put an end to atrocious immigration policies such as child separation, ending the Trump Remain in Mexico policy by allowing asylum seekers to request asylum at the American border instead of in Mexico, bringing stability and clarity for Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) eligible residents, ending the Muslim ban, and issuing a temporary moratorium on deportations.

It must be remembered that for years NASW has been an active member of multiracial and multigenerational coalitions of immigration reform advocates and voters who were leaders in ending the anti-immigrant policies of the Trump administration. President Biden can be assured that these same coalitions will stand with him in his efforts to pass into law his comprehensive immigration reform legislation. There will be challenges, but the country is now closer to bringing justice to its immigration system than it has been in many years.