Among the almost 100 executive orders enacted during President Trump’s first day in office, the administration included an order that has rolled back all federal programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I). That inclusion was a significant regression from the Biden administration’s approach to advancing racial equity and for remedying systemic racism. Not surprisingly, shortly  after signing the order, Trump disparagingly attacked this longstanding program as being radical DEI preferencing.
Briefly, the executive order mandates:

• The termination of all DEI initiatives across federal agencies.
• That all federal employees working in DEI roles be placed on paid leave, with plans for eventual layoffs.
• To emphasize so-called Merit-Based Hiring:
• That all federal agencies are directed to review and dismantle DEI-related policies and programs, including those in federal contracting and grant recipients. And
• That federal agencies must only recognize two genders: male and female.

It is NASW’s point of view that Trump’s DE&I executive order will worsen America’s racial disparities related to access to higher paying employment opportunities that have growth potential — while increasing the nation’s economic divide. Of similar importance, ending  successful  DE&I programs greatly slows down the advancement to a “level playing field” for people of color and women  as envisioned by  Civil Rights leaders of the 1960s.

In 2025, the United States is rapidly being transformed into a nation where “minorities” are becoming the majority, the notion of workplace equity and inclusion should be seen as ideal rather than something to be despised.

For example, Trump’s executive order targeting DEI eliminated many previous executive orders that sought to end racial and gender discrimination in the workplace. Chief among them was Trump decision to shutter the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — created by Lyndon Johnson’s Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1965.

From our standpoint, it is significant — and ominous— that Trump’s DE&I ban is also being forced on the private sector. It is notable that on the day following  the public DE&I executive order announcement, Trump signed  an addendum presidential action that directed government agencies to “combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”  This directive goes on to instruct the Attorney General —in collaboration with the heads of government agencies— to submit a report with recommendations  to “deter [private sector] DEI programs or principles (whether specifically designated ‘DEI’ or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.”

All of which demonstrate how aggressive and far-reaching attacks on DE&I the Trump administration intends to be.  This fact should serve as an alert to NASW — and our like-minded social justice allies— that we all must be fully committed to an informational counter-offensive aimed at protecting critical diversity and inclusion policies and programs.

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

Now, that progress is at risk. Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry and 15 other House Republicans have introduced a bill to repeal IRA. HR 191 would be demonstrative to many families and individuals across the country. For social workers and the communities we serve, this is deeply concerning. The repeal of the IRA would have devastating consequences, we must act to protect its provisions.

For nearly 19 million Americans, the IRA has been a game-changer, capping out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients at $2,000 annually, according to news reports. Starting in 2026, Medicare will begin negotiating lower prices for commonly used medications, potentially saving recipients $1.5 billion annually. These changes are not just numbers—they represent older adults filling their prescriptions without fear of financial ruin.

If the IRA is repealed, these hard-won benefits vanish. Millions of older adults and families on fixed incomes will again face impossible choices: pay for life-saving medication or keep the lights or heat on. Social workers witness these heartbreaking decisions daily, and the thought of returning to those dire circumstances is unacceptable.

The IRA isn’t just a health care law – it is also the largest clean energy investment in U.S. history. It has funded renewable energy projects in underserved communities, created green jobs, and taken meaningful steps toward combating climate change. For communities of color and low-income neighborhoods – often the hardest hit by environmental degradation – these investments are a critical step toward equity.

Repealing the IRA would halt this progress, leaving communities vulnerable to worsening climate impacts and lost economic opportunities.

One of the IRA’s less-discussed but equally important components is its funding to modernize the Internal Revenue Service. By cracking down on wealthy tax evaders, the law helps ensure that the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations pay their fair share. These funds, in turn, support vital social programs that benefit everyone.

Without this funding, economic inequity will grow, leaving those at the bottom of the economic ladder struggling even more.

Social workers are uniquely positioned to understand the ripple effects of policy decisions like this one. The repeal of the IRA would not only unravel progress made in health care affordability and environmental justice, but also increase the burden on social service systems that are already stretched thin.

NASW stands firmly against the repeal of the IRA. As advocates for social justice, it is our ethical obligation to protect policies that enhance well-being and promote equity.

What Can You Do?

1. Stay Informed: Understand how the IRA benefits your community. Share this knowledge with others.
2. Speak Out: Contact your representatives. Let them know that repealing the IRA would harm millions of Americans.

The fight to protect the Inflation Reduction Act is not just about policy; it’s about people. It is crucial to ensure that everyone – regardless of age, income, or zip code – has access to affordable health care, clean energy, and a fair chance at a better future. As social workers, we are called to be on the front lines of this struggle, advocating for justice on behalf of the communities we serve.

Together, we can make our voices heard. Let’s safeguard the progress we have made and continue working toward a more equitable and just society.

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) urges Members of Congress to vote no on the Laken Riley Act. This bill would make accusations – and not just convictions – of minor and non-violent crimes to be deportable offenses.

Therefore, people who are arrested on the pretext of criminal behavior would be subject to prolonged, indefinite detention without bond. The act is named for 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley. According to news reports Riley was murdered last February by Josie Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela. Ibarra had previously been caught by border patrol agents and released. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole in Riley’s death in November.

The Laken Riley Act (HR 29) will give individual states the standing to override the executive branch’s federal immigration policy. The bottom line is that if the bill is passed by the Senate it would be a blank check for jurisdictions that have a record  of discriminatory and anti-immigrant policies to execute their real goal of mass deportations of migrants.

NASW is deeply disappointed the House passed this bill with the support of 48 Democrats. NASW urges the Senate to reject the Laken Riley Act when it is scheduled for a vote in that body.

Some of the specific aspects of the bill that substantiates our call for the Senate to deny its passage include:

• The bill ignores basic due process protections by requiring mandatory immigration arrest and detention, without access to bail,  of any undocumented person either convicted of or merely arrested for low-level non-violent offenses. It is clear that detention without access to a bond or bail hearing, and with no mechanism for release prior to deportation, is a harmful practice that should be ended, not expanded.
• NASW is concerned that there is no statute of limitations associated with offenses that may have occurred many years prior to an arrest. Furthermore, the bill does not include provisions for individuals to resolve the underlying criminal charges against them before immigration detention.
• The Laken Riley Act, if implemented, will create a pipeline to indefinite detention for current undocumented people and for those in the future. Given the painful history of immigrant detention, this is an unacceptable outcome.
• It is inevitable that HR 29 will exacerbate racial profiling. In communities where profiling is already documented and is highly problematic, HR 29 would become a weapon for targeting immigrants, making entire communities afraid to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement.
• Mixed-Status Families will almost certainly face increased risk of separation. It is equally certain that the stringent enforcement measures in the Laken Riley Act will lead to imminent risk for deportations and the life altering traumatic consequences for young children in such families.
• The bill places Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients at heightened risk of being racially and ethnically profiled and overly scrutinized for evidence past “criminal” behaviors that would justify immigration detention procedures. All of which will disrupt the lives of TPS recipients and create uncertainty about their future in the United States.
• Similarly, “Dreamers” are also at risk of being adversely affected by the Laken Riley Act. It is not unrealistic to suggest that those with an anti-immigrant agenda will use the act as a pretext for profiling dreamers with increased scrutiny. This will lead to increased fear and instability among  Dreamers and their families, who have already faced significant uncertainty regarding their legal status.

For these and other reasons, NASW urges Members of Congress not to be swayed by those who profess that the Laken Riley Act has merit due to its supposed public safety objective. This is a cynical position, considering there is  no correlation between citizenship or immigration status and crime.

Evidence shows that immigrants make our communities stronger by invigorating local economies and fortifying urban development and cultural growth.  We should all be reminded that Laken Riley’s tragic death should be mourned and that the perpetrator – not the entire immigrant community – should be punished for that crime.

The NASW’s National Committee on LGBTQ+ Issues recognizes Nov. 20^th as Transgender Day of Remembrance, which memorializes those who have been killed by anti-transgender violence and hate around the world. This violence is most often at the intersection of perceived gender, skin color, socioeconomic status, and perceived sexuality.

The relentless false narratives that portrayed transgender people in campaign ads continues to incite hate against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and is dehumanizing. As we remember those whose lives have been violently taken from us, we believe in coming together and advocating for those who are still here, and for the future.

A core value to the profession of social work is social justice.

It is an ethical principle that social workers challenge social injustice. This group of 2SLGBTQIA+ social workers is asking that you challenge the 664 anti-trans bills proposed this year.

These discriminatory bills impact all of us. They create a space for trans and gender-expansive lives to be debated and for hatred to grow. As these laws are enacted, anti-trans violence increases and the mental and physical wellbeing among trans, gender expansive, and non-binary youth is worsening, along with their safety and security.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reported in 2023, 84 percent of fatalities were people of color, and 50 percent were Black trans women. Half of all reported victims were misgendered by authorities or the press.

As we reflect on those we have lost today, please plan how you will act in supporting trans, gender-expansive, and non-binary people in your lives and let them know you care.

HRC | Honoring Transgender Awareness Week and Transgender Day of…

Bill tracker: 2024 Anti-Trans Bills: Trans Legislation Tracker

President-elect Donald Trump recently announced his nomination of Tom Homan — former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — to be his “border czar.” This position will be responsible for overseeing the southern and northern borders, as well as maritime and aviation security. More importantly, Homan will be responsible for deportation efforts — a central part of Trump’s agenda.

To be blunt, Homan is absolutely the wrong person to be in charge of the massive task of apprehending, detaining, and deporting over 15 million “noncitizens” (which includes as many as 3 million children). Trump is moving quickly to initiate his ill-advised mass deportation project. The complexities of mass deportation are immeasurable — especially when it comes to ensuring that those affected are treated humanely and are assured of legal due process. Therefore, the director of this program must demonstrate not only logistical management skills, but also a fundamental commitment to preserving the human and civil rights of the millions who will be directly impacted.

‘Father of Family Separation’
Therein lies the main problem with appointing Homan as the “border czar” to oversee this huge undertaking. Homan has long rejected any thoughts of a nuanced approach to border security that seriously considers or anticipates the human and social impact of mass deportation. On the contrary, his past role as a line border enforcement officer and as an ICE administrator demonstrated the degree to which he embraced a hardline, zero-tolerance approach to border enforcement, with little regard for the physical and mental consequences to those affected.

Indeed, to many, he is seen as being stridently hostile to migrants and noncitizens who are present in the U.S. This is evidenced by his widely denounced position on family separation — a policy position for which he earned the label “father of family separation,” which predates Trump’s 2016 anti-migrant program.

Another deeply problematic aspect of Homan’s antagonism toward noncitizens is his fervent belief that the non-violent act of crossing the U.S. without documents — regardless of whether one is an asylum seeker or an unaccompanied migrant child — is an offense that justifies expedited removal without due process.

Much of that thinking emerges from a 2005 initiative called Operation Streamline, in which Homan was a participant. During this operation, many thousands of noncitizens were removed from U.S. soil expeditiously, using criminalization as the main justification for the action — as opposed to going through immigration courts.

In addition to the aggressive tactics used by ICE to apprehend targeted individuals and families, Operation Streamline denied apprehended migrants a meaningful opportunity to present their individual claims for asylum and other forms of relief. Ignoring such consequences of the 2005 initiative, Homan continues to insist on applying Operation Streamline-like procedures and processes as part of implementing Trump’s planned mass deportation.

History has shown us that mass deportation is not the answer for establishing border security — especially when it involves removing noncitizens who have lived here for decades and separating children from their parents.

Unfortunately, President-elect Trump has made this a “day one” priority, and he will likely move forward with mass deportation. That said, his appointment of Tom Homan to lead that effort will only exacerbate an already bad decision.

For more information about Mass Deportation and its implications for social work, read Mel Wilson’s Practice Alert on the subject, Near Certain Cataclysmic Consequences of a Mass Deportation Program

And Listen to the NASW Social Work Talks Podcast: Mass Deportation: Unjust and Harmful to the Nation Wendy Cervantes, Director of Immigration and Immigrant Families at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

The case revolves around how Ohio’s parentage laws apply to same-sex couples who reared their children but split up before same-sex marriage was legal.

Priya Shahani and Carmen Edmonds were involved in a romantic relationship from 2003 and 2015 and had three children together through artificial insemination with Ms. Shahani being the biological mother. The women gave each child the last name of “Edmonds-Shahani” and executed various legal documents recognizing one another as equal co-parents, including a Living Will and Health Care Power of Attorney. Ms. Shahani and Ms. Edmonds relationship predated Obergefell v. Hodges, which held bans on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. However, in 2015 the couple decided to separate and in 2017 Ms. Edmonds filed a petition to establish her parental rights. The Hamilton County Juvenile Court held that a same-sex partner does not fall within the definition of a “parent” under Ohio statutes because she was neither biologically related to the children nor married to the birthmother. The case was appealed to the First District Appellate Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling, and now the Supreme Court of Ohio is reviewing the case.

NASW, including its Ohio Chapter, supports protecting the familial attachments between LGBTQ+ couples and their children and recognizes that these familial relationships are of the same strength, depth, and importance to the healthy development of children as the relationships of opposite-sex couples and their children. This is further validated by the overwhelming social science research that confirms there is a potential for children to endure harm when they are separated from a parental figure, regardless of a biological link.

We urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to act in the best interests of children and to affirm the First District Appellate decision, providing Ms. Edmonds legal parentage and rights.

In recent years, voter roll purges— by many states— have emerged as a contentious issue in American electoral politics. States often argue that these purges are necessary to maintain the reliability of their voter rolls and to prevent fraud.

However, voting rights advocates insist — with significant evidence — that such purges are often intended as tools for voter suppression. Furthermore, advocates argue that voter roll purges are targeted and disproportionately affect marginalized communities, especially communities of color. While the tactic of targeted voter roll purges is not new, given the stakes of the 2024 presidential and Congressional elections, this practice demands ongoing scrutiny and election protection responses.

This problem is far from theoretical. For example, On October 11^th, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Virginia election officials that accuses the state of purging names from the state’s voter rolls, which is a violation of federal election law. Additionally, the Virginia League of Women Voters took legal action against Virginia’s Republican governor accusing him of purging the state’s voter rolls, to prevent undocumented individuals from voting. In that suit the plaintiff stated: “Defendants’ Purge Program is far from … a well-designed, well-intended list maintenance effort. It is an illegal, discriminatory, and error-ridden program that has directed the cancelation of voter registrations of naturalized U.S. citizens and jeopardizes the rights of countless others.”

Virginia is not alone in the effort to suppress votes in the 2024 election using vote purges. In early October, the state of Texas sent a letter to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requesting the federal government help Texas confirm the citizenship status of more than 450,000 of Texas’ registered voters. What triggered this request was the significant overall increase of voter registration on the last day of the state’s registration deadline. The Texas Attorney General (AG), who led this effort, based his request on the assumption that thousands of undocumented immigrants fraudulently registering to vote. The ulterior motive of the Texas AG is to suppress the Latino votes.

Correspondingly, one of the widely used forms of targeted voter roll purges is the practice of culling individuals with a past felony criminal record. In 2024, an estimated 4 million Americans, representing 1.7 percent of the voting-age population, will be ineligible to vote due laws that restrict persons with a prior felony conviction from voting. During an election year when democracy itself is at risk, the systematic exclusion of millions with felony convictions is a major concern. Especially since a disproportionate number of convicted felons are either African American or Latino and may likely be Democratic voters. This is an incentive for Republican led states to purge them from voter rolls —even after they have paid their debts to society.

Voter roll purges have had a significant impact on suppressing the votes of targeted groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans. These purges often disproportionately affect these communities due to several factors:

1. Error-Prone Processes: Voter roll purges frequently rely on flawed data and matching criteria, leading to the erroneous removal of eligible voters. For example, in the infamous Florida purge of 2000, many eligible voters were wrongfully removed due to poor matching criteria.
2. Lack of Transparency: The process of purging voter rolls is often conducted without sufficient oversight or public scrutiny, making it difficult to identify and correct errors.
3. Disproportionate Impact: Studies have shown that voter roll purges and other voting restrictions disproportionately affect communities of color. For instance, strict voter ID laws and polling place closures tend to impact African American, Hispanic, and Native American voters more heavily.

Conclusion

As we are entering the final days of a momentous presidential election campaign, hopes of a free and fair election are waning. Two of the main devices for unfairly tilting the scales in favor of Republican candidates — namely racial gerrymandering and voter suppression— are being fully operationalized. As evidenced by DOJ’s legal challenge of Virginia’s recent voter roll purges, several key states are unhesitant about suppressing votes. In an election that is going to be decided by a relative “handful” of voters, such tactics must be immediately challenged.

 Resources

Brennen Center – Voter Purges

Felony Disenfranchisement

Sentencing Project- Locked Out

South Dekota Voting Roll Purges

Voter Purge Project

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Virginia for Election-Integrity Efforts

As with most holidays, the history behind their recognition is complex, with perspectives that are dynamic and intersectional. Social workers, who continuously advocate for justice across cultures, must create space for reflection and education to foster inclusivity. This includes promoting policies that elevate those who are underrepresented and those whose perspectives are often neglected.

By honoring Indigenous Peoples’ Day, NASW desires to confront the “whitewashed” version of American history many are familiar with. This history often dignifies Europeans who perpetuated colonization, intolerance, violence, and committed atrocities against Indigenous communities and Native Americans.

Indigenous People, Native Americans, and sovereign Tribal Nations have long endured, and continue to experience, some of the highest rates of discrimination and oppression in our society. As social workers, we have a duty to advocate against all forms of injustice.

NASW encourages everyone to observe Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Monday, Oct. 14th, by reflecting on ways to increase access and representation for Indigenous communities. This can begin by asking Native Americans what this day means to them and advocating for the recognition and celebration of their invaluable contributions. Native Americans founded our country, and we must elevate their visibility and prioritize their stories.

They are central to our nation’s history and to its future.

Mx. Jo Seiders LCSW, CDE (Jo/Jo’s name only please) is NASW’s Senior Human Rights Policy Associate – DEI

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.