# data[].attributes.body
The increase in illegal immigration is due to poverty.

The strict rules against illegal immigration are sometimes irrelevant.

Human trafficking  is associated with illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration can promote terrorism.

Illegally immigrated kids should be given citizenship.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make changes in rules.

Proper border security can stop illegal immigrations.

Kids should not be separated from their families at the border.

A system should be developed to send back illegal immigrants.

Companies should possess all important immigration documents of their employees.

Civil wars are the main reason for increased illegal immigrations.

Government or the UN should provide enough facilities for citizens of countries facing war’s to stop them from choosing to immigrate illegally.

Refugees escaped from war or repression should not be considered an illegal migrant.

# data[].attributes.headline
Migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants: What’s the difference? (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants: What’s the difference? (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For most of the world's 25 million refugees, going home isn't an option. They must build a new life in another country.

Every World Refugee Day (June 20), we celebrate the courage and contributions of refugees around the globe.

Meet three courageous refugees and explore five ways you can honor their courage by taking action.

Act: World Refugee Day 2021
Every day, people around the world make the difficult decision to leave their countries in search of safety and better lives.

Why?

Currently, there are 82 million men, women and children escaping war, persecution and political turbulence. These are refugees and asylum seekers.

There are others who are looking for jobs or an education-they are usually called migrants-and people who want to live permanently in another country-immigrants.

There's been confusion and debate over the use of these terms to describe the plight of those on the move. Here's a closer look at the distinct differences between a refugee, asylum seeker, immigrant, and migrant.

Who is a refugee?

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home because of war, violence or persecution, often without warning. They are unable to return home unless and until conditions in their native lands are safe for them again.

An official entity such as a government or the United Nations Refugee Agency determines whether a person seeking international protection meets the definition of a refugee, based on well-founded fear.

Meet Salam Bunyan, who was forced to flee Iraq after receiving death threats from extremists. Get updates on the Ukrainian refugee crisis.
Those who obtain refugee status are given protections under international laws and conventions and lifesaving support from aid agencies, including the International Rescue Committee. Refugees in the U.S. also have the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents and eventually citizens.

Who is an asylum seeker?

An asylum seeker is someone who is also seeking international protection from dangers in his or her home country, but whose claim for refugee status hasn't been determined legally. Asylum seekers must apply for protection in the country of destination-meaning they must arrive at or cross a border in order to apply.

Then, they must be able to prove to authorities there that they meet the criteria to be covered by refugee protections. Not every asylum seeker will be recognized as a refugee.

Tens of thousands of children and families from Central America have fled extreme danger-murder, kidnapping, violence against women and forced recruitment by gangs. Those arriving at the U.S. border are being depicted as "illegal immigrants," but in reality, crossing an international border for asylum is not illegal and an asylum seeker's case must be heard, according to U.S. and international law.
Get the facts on what's happening at the U.S. border.
"It doesn't matter how you enter the country: If you're in the U.S. or you arrive at a port of entry you can seek asylum. There's no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance, you just have to show up," said the IRC's director of immigration Olga Byrne.

Who is an immigrant?

An immigrant is someone who makes a conscious decision to leave his or her home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there. Immigrants often go through a lengthy vetting process to immigrate to a new country. Many become lawful permanent residents and eventually citizens.
Learn about the IRC's immigration work.
Immigrants research their destinations, explore employment opportunities, and study the language of the country where they plan to live. Most importantly, they are free to return home whenever they choose.

Who is a migrant?

A migrant is someone who is moving from place to place (within his or her country or across borders), usually for economic reasons such as seasonal work. Similar to immigrants, they were not forced to leave their native countries because of persecution or violence, but rather are seeking better opportunities.

Many of those crossing the U.S. border from Central American countries- El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras-are in fact asylum seekers, not migrants. They have a well-founded fear of persecution if they were to return home.

What if you only had 5 minutes to pack?

Every minute conflict and disaster force 20 people to flee their homes, often with mere seconds to make impossible choices about what to bring with them on a journey of unknown length to an unknown destination.

How can I help?

Drought, conflict and disease rob children of the chance to live full, healthy lives. You can help: Give to the IRC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants: What's the difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For most of the world's 25 million refugees, going home isn't an option. They must build a new life in another country. Every World Refugee Day (June 20), we celebrate the courage and contributions of refugees around the globe. Meet three courageous refugees and explore five ways you can honor their courage by taking action.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Website (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Website (Text)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.uscis.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
USCIS is committed to keeping everyone safe during this pandemic. Our Visitor Policy details the precautions we enacted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in reopened facilities.

Follow the instructions included in your appointment notice.
Visitor Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
USCIS is committed to keeping everyone safe during this pandemic. Our Visitor Policy details the precautions we enacted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in reopened facilities. Follow the instructions included in your appointment notice. Visitor Policy

# data[].attributes.headline
House Passes Expanded Dream Act (Video) 

# data[].attributes.subject
House Passes Expanded Dream Act (Video) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pushed forward by Democrats, House passes expanded Dream Act

# data[].attributes.headline
Number of Deportations (Criminals VS. Non Criminals) From the U.S. 2001-2013 (Infographic)

# data[].attributes.subject
Number of Deportations (Criminals VS. Non Criminals) From the U.S. 2001-2013 (Infographic)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infographic: Deportations from the United States Reached a Record High in 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This chart shows the number of deportations by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

# data[].attributes.headline
Key Findings About U.S. Immigrants (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Key Findings About U.S. Immigrants (Text)

# data[].attributes.body
(Open in new window)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigrants listen to a speech as they wait to become U.S. citizens at a naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles. (Mark Ralson/AFP/Getty Images)

The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world's migrants. The population of immigrants is also very diverse, with just about every country in the world represented among U.S. immigrants.

Pew Research Center regularly publishes statistical portraits of the nation's foreign-born population, which include historical trends since 1960. Based on these portraits, here are answers to some key questions about the U.S. immigrant population.

How many people in the U.S. are immigrants?

The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.8 million in 2018. Since 1965, when U.S. immigration laws replaced a national quota system, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has more than quadrupled. Immigrants today account for 13.7% of the U.S. population, nearly triple the share (4.8%) in 1970. However, today's immigrant share remains below the record 14.8% share in 1890, when 9.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S.

What is the legal status of immigrants in the U.S.?

Most immigrants (77%) are in the country legally, while almost a quarter are unauthorized, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on census data adjusted for undercount. In 2017, 45% were naturalized U.S. citizens.

Some 27% of immigrants were permanent residents and 5% were temporary residents in 2017. Another 23% of all immigrants were unauthorized immigrants. From 1990 to 2007, the unauthorized immigrant population more than tripled in size - from 3.5 million to a record high of 12.2 million in 2007. By 2017, that number had declined by 1.7 million, or 14%. There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, accounting for 3.2% of the nation's population.

The decline in the unauthorized immigrant population is due largely to a fall in the number from Mexico - the single largest group of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Between 2007 and 2017, this group decreased by 2 million. Meanwhile, there was a rise in the number from Central America and Asia.

Do all lawful immigrants choose to become U.S. citizens?

Not all lawful permanent residents choose to pursue U.S. citizenship. Those who wish to do so may apply after meeting certain requirements, including having lived in the U.S. for five years. In fiscal year 2019, about 800,000 immigrants applied for naturalization. The number of naturalization applications has climbed in recent years, though the annual totals remain below the 1.4 million applications filed in 2007.

Generally, most immigrants eligible for naturalization apply to become citizens. However, Mexican lawful immigrants have the lowest naturalization rate overall. Language and personal barriers, lack of interest and financial barriers are among the top reasons for choosing not to naturalize cited by Mexican-born green card holders, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey.

Where do immigrants come from?

Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2018, roughly 11.2 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 25% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

By region of birth, immigrants from Asia combined accounted for 28% of all immigrants, close to the share of immigrants from Mexico (25%). Other regions make up smaller shares: Europe, Canada and other North America (13%), the Caribbean (10%), Central America (8%), South America (7%), the Middle East and North Africa (4%) and sub-Saharan Africa (5%).

Who is arriving today?

More than 1 million immigrants arrive in the U.S. each year. In 2018, the top country of origin for new immigrants coming into the U.S. was China, with 149,000 people, followed by India (129,000), Mexico (120,000) and the Philippines (46,000).

By race and ethnicity, more Asian immigrants than Hispanic immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in most years since 2009. Immigration from Latin America slowed following the Great Recession, particularly for Mexico, which has seen both decreasing flows into the United States and large flows back to Mexico in recent years.

Asians are projected to become the largest immigrant group in the U.S. by 2055, surpassing Hispanics. Pew Research Center estimates indicate that in 2065, those who identify as Asian will make up some 38% of all immigrants; as Hispanic, 31%; White, 20%; and Black, 9%.

Is the immigrant population growing?

New immigrant arrivals have fallen, mainly due to a decrease in the number of unauthorized immigrants coming to the U.S. The drop in the unauthorized immigrant population can primarily be attributed to more Mexican immigrants leaving the U.S. than coming in.

Looking forward, immigrants and their descendants are projected to account for 88% of U.S. population growth through 2065, assuming current immigration trends continue. In addition to new arrivals, U.S. births to immigrant parents will be important to future growth in the country's population. In 2018, the percentage of women giving birth in the past year was higher among immigrants (7.5%) than among the U.S. born (5.7%). While U.S.-born women gave birth to more than 3 million children that year, immigrant women gave birth to about 760,000.

How many immigrants have come to the U.S. as refugees?

Since the creation of the federal Refugee Resettlement Program in 1980, about 3 million refugees have been resettled in the U.S. - more than any other country.

In fiscal 2019, a total of 30,000 refugees were resettled in the U.S. The largest origin group of refugees was the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by Burma (Myanmar), Ukraine, Eritrea and Afghanistan. Among all refugees admitted in fiscal year 2019, 4,900 are Muslims (16%) and 23,800 are Christians (79%). Texas, Washington, New York and California resettled more than a quarter of all refugees admitted in fiscal 2018.

Where do most U.S. immigrants live?

Nearly half (45%) of the nation's immigrants live in just three states: California (24%), Texas (11%) and Florida (10%). California had the largest immigrant population of any state in 2018, at 10.6 million. Texas, Florida and New York had more than 4 million immigrants each.

In terms of regions, about two-thirds of immigrants lived in the West (34%) and South (34%). Roughly one-fifth lived in the Northeast (21%) and 11% were in the Midwest.

In 2018, most immigrants lived in just 20 major metropolitan areas, with the largest populations in the New York, Los Angeles and Miami metro areas. These top 20 metro areas were home to 28.7 million immigrants, or 64% of the nation's total foreign-born population. Most of the nation's unauthorized immigrant population lived in these top metro areas as well.

How do immigrants compare with the U.S. population overall in education?

Immigrants in the U.S. as a whole have lower levels of education than the U.S.-born population. In 2018, immigrants were over three times as likely as the U.S. born to have not completed high school (27% vs. 8%). However, immigrants were just as likely as the U.S. born to have a bachelor's degree or more (32% and 33%, respectively).

Educational attainment varies among the nation's immigrant groups, particularly across immigrants from different regions of the world. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are less likely to be high school graduates than the U.S. born (54% and 47%, respectively, do not have a high school diploma, vs. 8% of U.S. born). On the other hand, immigrants from every region except Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America were as likely as or more likely than U.S.-born residents to have a bachelor's or advanced degree.

Among all immigrants, those from South Asia (71%) were the most likely to have a bachelor's degree or more. Immigrants from Mexico (7%) and Central America (11%) were the least likely to have a bachelor's or higher.

How many immigrants are working in the U.S.?

In 2017, about 29 million immigrants were working or looking for work in the U.S., making up some 17% of the total civilian labor force. Lawful immigrants made up the majority of the immigrant workforce, at 21.2 million. An additional 7.6 million immigrant workers are unauthorized immigrants, less than the total of the previous year and notably less than in 2007, when they were 8.2 million. They alone account for 4.6% of the civilian labor force, a dip from their peak of 5.4% in 2007. During the same period, the overall U.S. workforce grew, as did the number of U.S.-born workers and lawful immigrant workers.

Immigrants are projected to drive future growth in the U.S. working-age population through at least 2035. As the Baby Boom generation heads into retirement, immigrants and their children are expected to offset a decline in the working-age population by adding about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035.

How well do immigrants speak English?

Among immigrants ages 5 and older in 2018, half (53%) are proficient English speakers - either speaking English very well (37%) or only speaking English at home (17%).

Immigrants from Mexico have the lowest rates of English proficiency (34%), followed by those from Central America (35%), East and Southeast Asia (50%) and South America (56%). Immigrants from Canada (96%), Oceania (82%), Europe (75%) and sub-Saharan Africa (74%) have the highest rates of English proficiency.

The longer immigrants have lived in the U.S., the greater the likelihood they are English proficient. Some 47% of immigrants living in the U.S. five years or less are proficient. By contrast, more than half (57%) of immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or more are proficient English speakers.

Among immigrants ages 5 and older, Spanish is the most commonly spoken language. Some 42% of immigrants in the U.S. speak Spanish at home. The top five languages spoken at home among immigrants outside of Spanish are English only (17%), followed by Chinese (6%), Hindi (5%), Filipino/Tagalog (4%) and French (3%).

How many immigrants have been deported recently?

Around 337,000 immigrants were deported from the U.S. in fiscal 2018, up since 2017. Overall, the Obama administration deported about 3 million immigrants between 2009 and 2016, a significantly higher number than the 2 million immigrants deported by the Bush administration between 2001 and 2008. In 2017, the Trump administration deported 295,000 immigrants, the lowest total since 2006.

Immigrants convicted of a crime made up the less than half of deportations in 2018, the most recent year for which statistics by criminal status are available. Of the 337,000 immigrants deported in 2018, some 44% had criminal convictions and 56% were not convicted of a crime. From 2001 to 2018, a majority (60%) of immigrants deported have not been convicted of a crime.

How many immigrant apprehensions take place at the U.S.-Mexico border?

The number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border has doubled from fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2019, from 396,579 in fiscal 2018 to 851,508 in fiscal 2019. Today, there are more apprehensions of non-Mexicans than Mexicans at the border. In fiscal 2019, apprehensions of Central Americans at the border exceeded those of Mexicans for the fourth consecutive year. The first time Mexicans did not make up the bulk of Border Patrol apprehensions was in 2014.

How do Americans view immigrants and immigration?

While immigration has been at the forefront of a national political debate, the U.S. public holds a range of views about immigrants living in the country. Overall, a majority of Americans have positive views about immigrants. About two-thirds of Americans (66%) say immigrants strengthen the country "because of their hard work and talents," while about a quarter (24%) say immigrants burden the country by taking jobs, housing and health care.

Yet these views vary starkly by political affiliation. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 88% think immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents, and just 8% say they are a burden. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 41% say immigrants strengthen the country, while 44% say they burden it.

Americans were divided on future levels of immigration. A quarter said legal immigration to the U.S. should be decreased (24%), while one-third (38%) said immigration should be kept at its present level and almost another third (32%) said immigration should be increased.
Note: This is an update of a post originally published May 3, 2017, and written by Gustavo López, a former research analyst focusing on Hispanics, immigration and demographics; and Kristen Bialik, a former research assistant.
CORRECTION (Sept. 21, 2020): An update to the methodology used to tabulate figures in the chart "Among new immigrant arrivals, Asians outnumber Hispanics" has changed all figures from 2001 and 2012. This new methodology has also allowed the inclusion of the figure from 2000. Furthermore, the earlier version of the chart incorrectly showed the partial year shares of Hispanic and Asian recent arrivals in 2015; the corrected complete year shares are 31% and 36%, respectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world's migrants. The population of immigrants is also very diverse, with just about every country in the world represented among U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
GLENVIEW COLLEGE PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those who are qualified for DACA, or Deffered Action for Childhood Arrivals as defined by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, are individuals who meet the following qualifications...

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S. (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S. (Text)

# data[].attributes.body
(Open in new window)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country. The origin countries of unauthorized immigrants also shifted during that time, with the number from Mexico declining and the number rising from Central America and Asia, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates.

Here are five facts about the unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S.

There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, representing 3.2% of the total U.S. population that year. The 2017 unauthorized immigrant total is a 14% drop from the peak of 12.2 million in 2007, when this group was 4% of the U.S. population.

The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007, while the total from other nations ticked up. Mexicans made up less than half of all unauthorized U.S. immigrants (47%) in 2017 for the first time, according to the Center's estimate, compared with 57% in 2007. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 4.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2017, down from 6.9 million in 2007.

Try our email course on immigration

Learn about U.S. immigration through five short lessons delivered to your inbox every other day.
Sign up now!

Meanwhile, the total from other nations, 5.5 million in 2017, ticked up from 2007, when it was 5.3 million. The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 from both Central America and Asia. There were 1.5 million Central American unauthorized immigrants in 2007 and 1.9 million in 2017. This growth was fueled mainly by immigrants from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The number from Asia, 1.3 million in 2007, rose to 1.5 million in 2017.

At the same time, the number of unauthorized immigrants from South America and Europe decreased between 2007 and 2017. Other large regions (the Caribbean, Middle East-North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world) did not change significantly during that time.

The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of unauthorized immigrant workers fell by 625,000, as did their share of the total U.S. workforce over the same period. In 2017, this group accounted for 4.6% of those in the U.S. who were working or were unemployed and looking for work.

Six states account for 57% of unauthorized immigrants: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. From 2007 to 2017, individual states experienced different trends. The unauthorized immigrant population decreased in a dozen states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. In five states, the unauthorized immigrant population rose over the same period: Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota and South Dakota.

A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade. About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2017 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for five years or less - 20% of adults in 2017, compared with 30% in 2007. In 2017, unauthorized immigrant adults had lived in the U.S. for a median of 15.1 years, meaning that half had been in the country at least that long.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published on Nov. 18, 2014.
Read more about immigration:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Canada's Immigration System VS. the United States (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Canada's Immigration System VS. the United States (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is Canada’s immigration system different from the U.S.?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Does the U.S. Need Immigration Reform (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Does the U.S. Need Immigration Reform (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People moved to the United States in the past for the same reasons as today: to join their families, to work, and to seek safety and refuge from war, violence, and natural disasters.

According to figures drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were roughly 45 million immigrants in the United States in 2017, meaning that immigrants make up about 14 percent of the population. Nearly 90 million people-28 percent of the overall U.S. population-are immigrants or their U.S.-born children, according to the 2018 Current Population Survey.

Two-thirds of undocumented immigrants have been living in the United States for more than 10 years and many of them live with their children who are U.S. citizens.

When was the current U.S. immigration system established?

There was never a single, coherent act by the U.S. Congress to create an immigration system. Historically, the United States has had an unfortunate history of enacting restrictive exclusionary laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the National Origins Act of 1924, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The system as we know it today is the result of several major legislative reforms:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was a sweeping act that ended the national origins quota system-which disproportionately favored European immigrants-and created the foundation of the current system, under which immigration is based around family reunification and the needs of employers.

The Refugee Act of 1980 adopted the United Nation's definition of "refugees" and expanded the annual admission of refugees.

In 1986, a Democratic Congress approved, and President Reagan signed into law, a major immigration reform bill, which created a path to citizenship for people who entered the United States without permission before 1982. The law also made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law legislation that created the Temporary Protected Status program, which allowed people fleeing violence and natural disasters to legally work and live in the United States until their home country had sufficiently recovered.

The DREAM Act, designed to offer undocumented youth a path to legal status, was first introduced in Congress in 2001 and has support from members of both political parties. Although it been approved by committees in both the House and Senate, it has yet to become law.

In 2012, President Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed a specific group of young immigrants without status, who were brought to the United States as children, to apply for work authorization permits and protection from immediate deportation. The Trump administration ended the program in 2017, although the federal courts have kept the program in place.

Since then, immigration reform has eluded presidents of both parties. Several measures have been introduced, and even passed one chamber with bipartisan support, but they stalled out short of final passage.

What role do immigrants play in the U.S. economy?

According to the National Academy of Sciences, "immigration is integral to the nation's economic growth." That is partially because the U.S. workforce is getting older, which makes the arrival of tax-paying, job-creating, and business-starting newcomers an economic necessity. The report also found that there is "little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers."

In fact, IRS data from 2015 shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers without Social Security numbers-who are more likely to be undocumented-which were worth $23.6 billion [PDF].

What's the difference between a refugee, asylum seeker, migrant, and immigrant?

The terms "asylum seeker," "immigrant," "migrant," and "refugee" are often used interchangeably. The differences between the four, however, are important.

According to the International Rescue Committee:

Refugees are people living outside of the United States who were "forced to flee [their] home because of war, violence, or persecution, often without warning."

Asylum seekers are people who are "seeking international protection from dangers in [their] home country, but whose claim for refugee status hasn't been determined legally." People seeking asylum are applying inside the United States. Whether a person is seeking asylum or status as a refugee, they have to meet the same challenging burden of proof. They must demonstrate "a well-founded fear of persecution" on the basis of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or member of a social group.

Migrants are people who are "moving from place to place (within [their] country or across borders), usually for economic reasons such as seasonal work."

Immigrants are people who have made "a conscious decision to leave his or her home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there."

What motivates asylum seekers to come to the United States?

While some asylum seekers come to the United States because of poverty, research by Doctors Without Borders [PDF], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others has shown that a large-and growing-number of them are trying to escape violence.

In 2010, for example, 13 percent of the people apprehended at the U.S. southern border came from Central America's so-called Northern Triangle-Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. With violence and crime now at unprecedented levels-they are among the top 10 most violent countries in terms of homicides-that number had jumped to 42 percent in 2016.

According to Pew Research, more Mexicans are leaving the United States rather than entering. Between 2009 and 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families-including U.S.-born children-left the United States for Mexico.

More recently, there's been a significant increase in the number of women and children fleeing violence and crime from the Northern Triangle. Between fiscal year 2018 and 2019, there has been a 374 percent increase in the number of families seeking asylum in the United States.

Are refugees vetted before entering the United States?

The process for vetting refugees is long and difficult, typically taking between 18 months and two years to complete. Refugees must register with the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees, which does an initial screening before referring qualifying individuals to the U.S. Department of State. The State Department then conducts background and security checks, fingerprinting, biometric screening, and medical tests. Only after all of these steps have been taken can a person enter the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Does the U.S. Need Immigration Reform?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How we treat newcomers should reflect the values of fairness and equality that define the United States as a country.

# data[].attributes.headline
USCIS and the Legacy of Ellis Island (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
USCIS and the Legacy of Ellis Island (Video)

# data[].attributes.headline
What We Know About Illegal Immigration From Mexico (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
What We Know About Illegal Immigration From Mexico (Text)

# data[].attributes.body
(Open in new window)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There were 11.6 million immigrants from Mexico living in the United States in 2017, and fewer than half of them (43%) were in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Mexico is the country's largest source of immigrants, making up 25% of all U.S. immigrants.

As President Donald Trump's administration has taken a variety of steps to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. - including through the increase of law enforcement agents at the southern border - here's what we know about illegal immigration from Mexico.

1 The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by 2 million since 2007. In 2017, 4.9 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico lived in the U.S., down from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. Mexicans now make up fewer than half of the nation's 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants (47% in 2017).

2 At the U.S.-Mexico border, there have been more apprehensions of non-Mexicans than Mexicans every year since fiscal 2016. Non-Mexicans accounted for 62% of apprehensions at the southwest border in fiscal 2018, marking the third consecutive year in which they outnumbered Mexicans. In fiscal 2018, which ended Sept. 30, the Border Patrol made 152,257 apprehensions of Mexicans. This is a sharp drop from a recent peak of 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal 2000, when Mexicans accounted for 98% of apprehensions. The decline in apprehensions reflects a decrease in the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

3Mexicans were deported from the U.S. 192,334 times in fiscal 2017, down from a recent high of 307,120 in fiscal 2013 - but up from 169,031 in fiscal 2005. The increase over the past decade occurred after a 2005 shift in policy that increased the chances of being deported following apprehension in the border region. Prior to that change, many unauthorized immigrants were returned without a formal deportation order.

4 Mexican unauthorized immigrant adults are more likely to be long-term residents of the U.S. As of 2017, 83% had lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years, while only 8% had been in the country for five years or less. By comparison, 51% of unauthorized immigrant adults from countries other than Mexico had lived in the U.S. a decade or more as of 2017, while 30% had lived in the U.S. for five years or less.

Try our email course on immigration

Learn about U.S. immigration through five short lessons delivered to your inbox every other day.
Sign up now!

5About 536,000 unauthorized immigrants from Mexico are enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as of April 2019, which provides work permits and protection from deportation to those who meet certain requirements. Mexico is the origin country with the most active DACA recipients by far. The next highest countries are El Salvador (26,000), Guatemala (17,000) and Honduras (16,000). Trump ordered an end to DACA in September 2017, but enrollees can remain in the program while federal courts consider cases regarding its future.
Note: This post was originally published July 5, 2015 and has been updated.
Related posts:
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. Mexicans decline to less than half the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population for the first time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There were 11.6 million immigrants from Mexico living in the United States in 2017, and fewer than half of them (43%) were in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Mexico is the country's largest source of immigrants, making up 25% of all U.S. immigrants.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spike in Unaccompanied Minors at U.S. Southern Border (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Spike in Unaccompanied Minors at U.S. Southern Border (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the apprehension of 11,500 Central American unaccompanied children at the U.S.-Mexico border in May alone, this fiscal year is on track to far exceed the numbers seen during fiscal 2014, when the surge in arrivals of these minors was viewed as a crisis. The care of these children, whether in initial detention at the border or later government custody, has provoked growing public outrage-in particular with reports in recent days of unsafe, filthy conditions that children, including infants, have experienced in overcrowded Border Patrol holding facilities.

The outcry is reminiscent of the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy that resulted in the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents, in hopes of deterring the growing numbers of family arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border. Even as that policy was shelved in June 2018 amid major national and international outcry, more than 700 children have been separated from their parents since then.

While the apprehension of "family units" (the government's term for family members traveling together) has outpaced the arrival of unaccompanied minors in recent years, the surge in child arrivals has risen to new levels this year. This record flow has overwhelmed normal government responses, with cascading negative and even deadly consequences. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)-the arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that takes custody of the children and is responsible for their care-has run acutely short of funds and bed space, and predicts it will exhaust its funding before the end of the month. Amid these challenges, the government has canceled educational and recreational activities for the children, erected tent cities in the desert to hold them, and contemplated housing some on military bases.

The lack of beds in ORR facilities has created deplorable conditions at the border, with children subjected to waits of days and weeks at crowded U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities that were never intended to house minors. As CBP grapples with the overcrowding, government lawyers unapologetically argued before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week that the administration had no obligation to provide children with beds, soap, or toothbrushes. During the last year, seven immigrant children have died after or while being detained at CBP facilities.

While the administration is blaming Congress for delays in approving more than $4 billion in new spending to address conditions at the border, the funding and overcrowding crisis it faces is partly of its own making. The administration failed to ask for an increase in funds in its fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget request despite projecting more unaccompanied minors would arrive during the year. And its decision to share information ORR gathers about potential sponsors of unaccompanied children with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) drove up the length of time children spend in ORR custody. In December 2018, nearly 15,000 children were held in custody-a historic high. As of April, the number has fallen to 12,587, but has required ORR to turn, in some cases, to costly emergency shelters run by private contractors.

The continuing rise in child arrivals-just as during the 2014 surge-offers a constant reminder that this migration pattern is unlikely to abate and should be seen as an ongoing phenomenon instead of an occasional episodic crisis. The failure of both the Trump and Obama administrations and Congress to plan for this reality has severely undermined the government's ability to build a sustained capacity response with built-in flexibility to accommodate the ups and downs of migrant flows. The lack of such capacity precipitates crises leading to conditions of the kind witnessed in recent weeks-in which children are subjected to wait for weeks at ill-prepared and unsanitary Border Patrol facilities. Attorneys visiting one Border Patrol facility in Clint, Texas, last week reported seeing toddlers without diapers, children unbathed and wearing the same clothes for weeks at a time, and many sick with the flu.

As the media continues to report on these conditions in CBP facilities, the House and Senate as of this writing had passed separate bills providing about $4.5 billion in emergency funding for the agencies dealing with the border crisis-though lacked consensus on a final package. However this funding debate turns out, there is still no sign of a real commitment to a long-term solution for sustained capacity building for the care of unaccompanied children.
Arrivals Swell Amid New Enforcement Actions
So far this fiscal year, CBP has apprehended 56,278 unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border illegally, in addition to 3,236 others arriving at ports of entry. Under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), Central American unaccompanied minors who arrive at the U.S. border may not be immediately deported. Instead, they are given the opportunity to present their claim for asylum under U.S. law and are transferred to the care and custody of ORR. The agency is then obligated to try to find family members or other sponsors in the United States to whom the children could be transferred. If no such sponsors are found, the children stay in ORR custody.

The Trump administration's targeting of sponsors has caused the population in custody to swell. In April 2018, the administration adopted a new policy toward potential sponsors: it began sharing the fingerprints of potential sponsors-and all members of their household-with ICE, resulting in the arrest of some sponsors who were unauthorized immigrants. By December 2018, 170 potential sponsors had been arrested, 109 of whom had no criminal record.

These actions evidently created a chilling effect and offers of potential sponsorship dropped. Children were spending an average 93 days in custody as of November 2018, up from 34 days in FY 2016. After the daily population in custody surged, in a reversal, ORR in December 2018 announced it would no longer fingerprint all adults in the households of potential sponsors.
Figure 1. Average Number of Unaccompanied Minors in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Custody, FY 2010-19*
* The average number of children in care for fiscal year (FY) 2017 is unavailable, so the displayed number represents an average between 2016 and 2018 numbers.
** Data for FY 2019 are through April 2019.
Sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), "Annual ORR Reports to Congress" (several years), accessed June 25, 2019, available online; ORR, "Latest UAC Data - FY2018," updated May 6, 2019, available online; ORR, "Latest UAC Data - FY2019," updated May 30, 2019, available online.

Congress also stepped in to restrict enforcement actions against sponsoring families. In a February 2019 appropriations bill, Congress conditioned that no funds be used to detain, remove, or begin removal proceedings against any sponsor based on information ICE received from ORR. Perhaps as a result of this change, according to the most recently available numbers, the average time in ORR custody dropped to 48 days in April.

But with a still near-historical high of more than 14,000 children in its custody, ORR has told Congress that funding for migrant child care will run out entirely before July. Congress was alerted to the funding shortage in March, when then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen cautioned in a letter that ORR was hitting "peak capacity."

To deal with the rising numbers, during the last year ORR has operated two influx facilities: Homestead Job Corps Facility in Homestead, Florida and Tornillo in El Paso, Texas. Together, these facilities can house a maximum of 7,000 children. The cost of housing unaccompanied minors in such temporary shelters is three times higher than in regular ORR shelters, because of the need to quickly develop the facilities and hire significant staff. Tornillo was operational for only six months, from June 2018 to January 2019, and cost the U.S. government more than $430 million.

The large number of children in care-and the use of expensive temporary housing-has exacerbated a funding crisis that was all but inevitable from the outset. ORR failed to request sufficient funds upfront. In its budget request for FY 2019, ORR planned for a peak population of 9,000 child migrants. Yet at the time this request was made, in February 2018, the population in care already exceeded 7,600, offering hints that the 9,000 would be insufficient. So far in FY 2019, the monthly average number of children in ORR care has never gone below 11,000.

Even before FY 2019 started, in September 2018, HHS notified Congress that to pay for the increased child housing costs, it intended to transfer up to $186 million from funds allocated to other HHS programs, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medicare and Medicaid, and the National Institutes of Health.

The shortfall has begun to have serious implications for the health and wellbeing of the children. On May 30, HHS ended educational and recreational activities, telling service providers that federal funds released on or after May 22 could only be used for activities "directly necessary for the protection of life and safety."
A History of Surges and Funding Problems
While some of the administration's actions have uniquely exacerbated the current crisis, many of the contributing factors, including insufficient funding and the reliance on expensive temporary housing, have been persistent problems.

ORR first saw a significant increase in child arrivals in FY 2012, when the agency received almost 7,200 referrals during a five-month period-surpassing the prior year's total arrivals. By the end of the fiscal year, the program had received more than double the number in FY 2011 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Total Number of Unaccompanied Minors Served by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), FY 2010-19*
Note: The FY 2019 number is as of June 10, 2019.
Sources: ORR, "Annual Report to Congress" (several years), accessed June 25, 2019, available online; HHS and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Letter to Congress," June 12, 2019, available online.

To meet the new demand, ORR quickly increased capacity in five emergency reception centers, including Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, and in its permanent shelters. Despite these expansions, many children were detained in gyms and other warehouse-like structures while they awaited vacancies in ORR facilities. To pay for this housing scramble, the Obama administration and Congress transferred funding from other HHS programs, including reimbursement assistance for refugees, national centers for early childhood training and technical assistance, and a social services grant program that normally provides assistance for programs such as foster care and protective services.

Separately, the Obama administration began streamlining the sponsor reunification process. In 2013, when it confronted another rise in unaccompanied child arrivals, ORR discontinued the practice of fingerprinting certain potential sponsors and dropped other screenings. These efforts successfully reduced the average number of days children spent in custody: from 72 in 2011 to less than 35 days in 2014.

However, in 2014, ORR received 57,496 referrals; more than double the amount from the year before and nearly four times as many as during 2012. To accommodate this growing population, the government used three Defense Department facilities: Fort Sill in Oklahoma, Naval Base Ventura County in California, and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

To address the urgent situation, President Obama asked Congress for an additional $3.7 billion, $1.8 billion of which would be used for housing the children in ORR custody. However, the Republican-led Congress conditioned its support on amending the 2008 TVPRA, which it blamed for creating the crisis, and the funds were ultimately never approved. Absent these funds, ORR once again relied on internal funding transfers to make up the difference.

Even though ORR's streamlining of the sponsor reunification process successfully reduced time spent by children in custody-and thus costs-the efforts were called into question when some exploitative sponsors were exposed. At the end of 2014 it came to light that six Guatemalan youths had been trafficked to an Ohio egg farm where they were forced to work 12 hours a day and threatened with death if they complained. Following an investigation and congressional pressure, ORR reversed some of its sponsor reunification streamlining policies: for example, the agency increased vetting and checks on unrelated family friends who stepped forward to sponsor children.

Despite these repeat upticks in arrivals and patchwork funding solutions, the executive branch and Congress collectively have failed to establish a system that can respond to sizeable fluctuations in capacity demands. The need for such capacity is apparent-the average daily population of unaccompanied children in ORR custody in 2015 varied dramatically from under 2,500 to close to 6,000.

Beginning in 2015, the Obama administration annually petitioned Congress for a contingency fund to provide ORR with additional funding to accommodate higher-than-expected caseloads. And Congress every year denied the request. This pattern continues under the Trump administration. In its FY 2020 request, the administration requested a contingency fund capped at $2 billion over three years.

Other than the repeated request for this contingency fund, there has been no acknowledgment that the unaccompanied minors present an enduring crisis. The Trump administration has adopted even more hardline policies against unaccompanied children (see box). These policies are ostensibly intended to deter children from coming to the United States in the future. However, there is little evidence that such policy changes will affect the rising numbers. The challenge of child arrivals is just one facet of the broader asylum crisis that the Central American migrant flows present. Implementing punitive policies against this population to send a message is unlikely to deter these flows. Instead, these measures will only increase the program's crippling capacity challenges and continue to subject migrant children to precarious conditions.

Box 1: Policies Toward Unaccompanied Children Under the Trump Administration

Seeing the unaccompanied child program as a driver of migration, the Trump administration has sought to reduce the number of children qualifying for care by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. In a September 2017 legal opinion, the Justice Department took the position that an immigration judge can rescind the unaccompanied child designation during the minor's court proceedings, if he or she ages out or has been reunified with a parent or legal guardian. Removing the designation would disqualify the child from applying for asylum directly before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). According to press reports, later this month USICS asylum officers will also begin removing the designations from children whose cases they are adjudicating.

The administration has also clamped down on another common form of immigration relief for children: Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. In the first half of 2018, USCIS began systematically denying applications for SIJ status when the applicant is 18 or older.

In August 2017, ORR began placing all unaccompanied children with any gang-related history in staff secure facilities and made them ineligible for release. The non-release policy was later enjoined by a federal judge.

According to reports, the administration has also begun immediately transferring unaccompanied children from ORR to ICE custody on their 18th birthdays, the first day on which they no longer meet the statutory definition for ORR care.
Resources
National Policy Beat in Brief

Handing the Administration a Defeat, the Supreme Court Sends Census Case Back to Lower Court, Leaving the Citizenship Question Off for Now. In a highly anticipated decision issued on the final day of this year's term, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge in New York had properly remanded the case back to the Commerce Department.

In a complicated decision, issued with multiple opinions and dissents, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court's liberal justices, held that the decision to add the citizenship question was not supported by a reasoned explanation by the Commerce Department, the agency that administers the census. It found that the Commerce Department's explanation for adding the question-to better enforce the Voting Rights Act-was "incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decision-making process."

Civil-rights groups and others challenging addition of the citizenship question charge the Commerce Department's decision, made by Secretary Wilbur Ross, was driven by political motives, and that adding the question would depress census participation by minorities, advantaging the Republican Party in political redistricting for a decade to come. The discovery late in the litigation of information suggesting a deceased Republican strategist had played a crucial role in the Trump administration's decision to add the citizenship question has added further intrigue to a case already filled with questions about the motives behind adding the question. (See Box 1 in this earlier Policy Beat for a chronology of events leading to the question's proposed inclusion.)

Because federal law requires agencies to offer "genuine justifications for important decisions," the Supreme Court ruled that the district court was right to remand the case, effectively giving the Commerce Department the opportunity to provide an adequate answer. In addition, the high court found that the decision to add the question did not violate the Constitution nor the Census Act.

The result leaves the Trump administration with logistical challenges beyond the legal ones. While the Commerce Department insisted printing the census form needed to begin in July, the Justice Department has said the printing could wait as late as October 31. But there are serious doubts whether all the legal issues surrounding the citizenship question will be resolved before then.

In addition to the fallout from the Supreme Court ruling, the census question separately is under review in a federal district court in Maryland, which decided to revisit the case after newly discovered evidence gave credence to claims that the Commerce Department to add the citizenship question was driven by discriminatory motives. Given the developments in both the New York and Maryland cases, the question will likely work its way back for final resolution by the Supreme Court. Whether there is sufficient time for that to happen before October is now the critical question.

The case has captured widespread attention, largely because the outcome has serious implications on a number of fronts. The count from the 2020 census will determine how many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College each state receives, as well as the distribution of about $900 billion in federal funds each year for schools, roads, health care, and more. According to Census Bureau experts, the addition of the citizenship question would likely reduce responses among households with at least one noncitizen by at least 8 percentage points, equating to an estimated 9 million people not participating in the count.

United States-Mexico Agreement Averts Tariffs, Promises Future Asylum Agreement. On June 7, the United States and Mexico reached an agreement aimed at reducing flows of unauthorized immigrants to the U.S.-Mexico border, averting the implementation of President Trump's announced tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. The president had threatened to impose rising tariffs of up to 25 percent on such goods until illegal immigration ceased. Under the negotiated agreement, Mexico has deployed 6,000 members of its newly formed National Guard to its southern border, with a focus on dismantling human-smuggling organizations. And the United States has expanded implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, under which some arriving asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border are sent back to Mexico for the pendency of their U.S. asylum proceedings. The deal was widely criticized as duplicative of terms already agreed to by the two governments.

It was later revealed that an additional agreement was signed, committing Mexican officials to do everything they can to convince the Mexican legislature to agree to a safe third-country agreement, should the United States deem that migration has not decreased enough. Under such an agreement, non-Mexican nationals would be obligated to apply for asylum in Mexico instead of in the United States. The agreement would include a regional component, including a deal currently being negotiated with Guatemala that would obligate asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras to first seek asylum in Guatemala.

United States, Guatemala Sign Agreement on Migrant Smuggling. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Guatemalan Ministry of Government aimed at stemming the flow of irregular migration. As part of the agreement, intended to disrupt and interdict human-smuggling operations, dozens of DHS agents and investigators will deploy to Guatemala to advise police and migration authorities. According to Guatemalan officials, at least nine people accused of human smuggling have already been arrested as part of the joint operations.

Federal Judge Partially Blocks Border Wall Funding. A federal district judge in Oakland, California enjoined the $1 billion transfer of Pentagon counterdrug funding to cover expansions and barrier enhancements on the U.S.-Mexico border. Finding that the transfer exceeded the administration's authority under federal law, the order limits use of the funds for planned construction in the El Paso sector in Texas and the Yuma sector in Arizona. It does not prevent the administration from tapping other funding sources for those projects.

On June 3, the administration requested that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issue an emergency stay against the lower court's injunction, thus allowing the government to move forward with the construction. That motion is still pending.

In a related case, on June 17, a federal district judge in Washington, DC, at the request of the U.S. House of Representatives, dismissed a lawsuit that the House had brought over the border wall funding. Lawyers for the House had requested the judge dismiss the lawsuit entirely as they appeal to the DC Court of Appeals.

House Passes Bill to Protect DREAMers, TPS Recipients. On June 4, the House passed a bill that would provide permanent legal status and a path to citizenship to hundreds of thousands of DREAMers-unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children. The bill also would offer legal status to Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients and a group of Liberians who have benefitted from the Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) program. The Migration Policy Institute estimates up to 2.7 million foreign nationals could receive status under the legislation.

The House vote fell largely on partisan lines, with only seven Republicans joining Democrats to vote for the bill. The legislation is unlikely to be brought for a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Congress has been under increasing pressure to protect DREAMers after President Trump cancelled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provides protections and work authorization to some of them. Under several court injunctions, the program has been allowed to continue pending the outcome of the litigation. The administration has appealed these injunctions to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the matter.

State and Local Policy Beat in Brief

New York Makes Unauthorized Residents Eligible for Driver's Licenses. This month New York legislators approved legislation, which Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed into law, allowing the state's unauthorized residents to apply for driver's licenses. After much debate and hesitation among moderate Democrats, the bill passed in the Senate with just one more vote than the minimum needed, 33 to 29. The law also protects the data of applicants from unwarranted release. Twelve states and Washington, DC currently allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

Federal Judge Blocks Immigration Arrests at Massachusetts Courts. On June 20, in a lawsuit over the ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make arrests at Massachusetts courthouses, a federal judge temporarily blocked the practice. The preliminary injunction stops ICE agents from arresting parties, witnesses, and others visiting courthouses at least for the duration of the lawsuit.

The case was filed in April by two Massachusetts district attorneys, joined by public defenders and immigration advocates. The district attorneys argued that ICE's arrests in state courthouses hinder their ability to prosecute cases.

California Expands Health Care Program to Unauthorized Immigrants. This month California became the first state to offer public health insurance coverage to young adult unauthorized immigrants. On June 14, California lawmakers approved a $214.8 billion budget that included the health-care expansion. Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the spending plan, which will extend California's Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) to low-income unauthorized immigrants between the ages of 19 and 25. Children under ages 19 and DACA recipients are already eligible for the program. According to state officials, the expansion will affect an estimated 90,000 people. The expansion will take effect on January 1, 2020. Advocacy groups criticized the exclusion of older unauthorized immigrant adults from the budget proposal.

Connecticut Lawmakers Expand Sanctuary Policies. On June 18, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed legislation to amend and expand the state's 2013 sanctuary law, the Trust Act. The original law gave law enforcement officers discretion to adhere to ICE detainer requests and set strict requirements for complying with the detainer without a warrant. The newly passed bill will prevent law enforcement from detaining someone on a civil immigration detainer unless it is accompanied by a warrant signed by a judge, or the foreign national is guilty of a serious felony or is on a terrorist watch list. Additionally, the new law limits information sharing with ICE and requires law enforcement officials to inform individuals that ICE has requested their detention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Muzaffar Chishti, Sarah Pierce Muzaffar Chishti, Sarah Pierce, and Herrica Telus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spike in Unaccompanied Child Arrivals at U.S.-Mexico Border Proves Enduring Challenge; Citizenship Question on 2020 Census in Doubt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Approximately 11,500 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in May, putting this year on track to exceed 2014's surge. As the U.S. government struggles to care for these child migrants, with public outrage mounting over reports of unsafe, filthy conditions in initial Border Patrol custody, the failure of the executive branch and Congress to plan for increased shelter and care demands are increasingly apparent, as this article explores.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Citizenship Interview and Test (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Citizenship Interview and Test (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 16:21•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Immigrants (Infographic)

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Immigrants (Infographic)

# data[].attributes.headline
Using Tablets to Administer the English and Reading Portions of the Immigration Test (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Using Tablets to Administer the English and Reading Portions of the Immigration Test (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USCIS Using Tablets to Administer the English Reading and Writing Tests for Naturalization

# data[].attributes.headline
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used by the USCIS (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used by the USCIS (Video)

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Migration Map: Where are Immigrants Coming From (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Migration Map: Where are Immigrants Coming From (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Origins and Destinations of the World's Migrants, 1990-2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore origin and destination totals of migrants from 233 countries between 1990 and 2017.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guide to Arriving At the U.S. Border (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Guide to Arriving At the U.S. Border (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The American Immigration Council is updating this Guide which was first issued in summer 2014. It provides information about the tens of thousands of children-some travelling with their parents and others alone-who have fled their homes in Central America and arrived at our southern border. This Guide seeks to explain the basics. Who are these children and why are they coming? What basic protections does the law afford them? What happens to the children once they are in U.S. custody? What have the U.S. and other governments done in response? What additional responses have advocates and legislators proposed? The answers to these questions are critical to assessing the U.S. government's responses and understanding the ongoing debate about whether reforms to the immigration laws and policies involving children are needed.

Background: Who are the children, why are they coming, and what obligations do we have?

What does "unaccompanied children" mean?

Children who arrive in the United States alone or who are required to appear in immigration court on their own often are referred to as unaccompanied children or unaccompanied minors. "Unaccompanied alien child" (UAC) is a technical term defined by law as a child who "(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom-(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody." Due to their vulnerability, these young migrants receive certain protections under U.S. law. The immigration laws do not define the term "accompanied" children, but children arriving in the United States with a parent or guardian are considered accompanied.

Where are these children and families coming from?

The vast majority of unaccompanied children and families arriving at the southwest border come from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, although unaccompanied children may arrive from any country. Over the past few years, increasing numbers of children and families have been fleeing violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador-a region of Central America known as the "Northern Triangle." According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ( CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, CBP encountered 67,339 unaccompanied children. The largest number of children (27 percent of the total) came from Honduras, followed by Guatemala (25 percent), El Salvador (24 percent), and Mexico (23 percent). The number of unaccompanied children arriving at the southern border has decreased since its peak in the summer and fall of 2014. Between October 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015, CBP apprehended 3,514 unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, 6,607 from Guatemala, 1,977 from Honduras, and 6,519 from Mexico. This represents approximately a 45 percent decrease from the same time period the prior year. The apprehensions of "family units" (children with a parent or legal guardian) also declined. There were 16,997 family unit apprehensions from October 1, 2014 to April 30, 2015, a 35 percent decrease from 26,341 apprehensions during the same time frame the year before. As discussed below, this decrease in apprehensions likely is tied to increases in apprehensions in Mexico and increased security measures along Mexico's southern border.
Unaccompanied Migrant Children Encountered FY 2009-FY 2015*
Source: CBP.
*FY 2015 through April 30, 2015.

Why are children and families leaving their home countries?

Researchers consistently cite increased Northern Triangle violence as the primary motivation for recent migration, while identifying additional causes including poverty and family reunification. A report by the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), citing 2012 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) data, highlighted that Honduras had a homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 people. El Salvador and Guatemala had homicide rates of 41.2 and 39.9, respectively. A 2014 analysis conducted by Tom Wong, a University of California-San Diego political science professor, took the UNDOC data and compared it to the data on unaccompanied children provided by CBP. Wong found a positive relationship between violence and the flow of children: "meaning that higher rates of homicide in countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are related to greater numbers of children fleeing to the United States."

While a child may have multiple reasons for leaving his or her country, children from the Northern Triangle consistently cite gang or cartel violence as a primary motivation for fleeing. Research conducted in El Salvador on child migrants who were returned from Mexico found that 60 percent listed crime, gang threats, and insecurity as a reason for leaving. In a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) survey of 404 unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, 48 percent of the children "shared experiences of how they had been personally affected by the...violence in the region by organized armed criminal actors, including drug cartels and gangs or by State actors." Furthermore, the violence frequently targets youth. Recruitment for gangs begins in adolescence-or younger-and there are incidents of youth being beaten by police who suspected them of gang membership.

Are children coming to the United States because of DACA?

No. U.S. immigration enforcement policy, including deferred action programs that would allow certain undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States temporarily, is not a primary cause of the migration. Notably, the rise in violence and corresponding increase in unaccompanied child arrivals precede both the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and Senate passage of an immigration reform bill S.744-positive developments that are sometimes cited as pull factors by Obama Administration critics. In fact, in its 2012 report, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) stated that "in a five month period between March and July 2012, the UAC program received almost 7,200 referrals - surpassing FY2011's total annual referrals," showing that the rise in UACs predated the implementation of the DACA program. Furthermore, individuals who arrived in the country after January 1, 2007 would not be eligible for DACA.

Would more Border Patrol resources deter border crossers?

There is little evidence to support the proposition that the border must be further fortified to deter an influx of children and families. Treating the current situation as simply another wave of unauthorized immigration misses the broader policy and humanitarian concerns driving these children and families' migration. In fact, many women and children are turning themselves over to Border Patrol agents upon arrival and are not seeking to evade apprehension.

Furthermore, CBP's resources along the southwest border are already significant. There were 18,156 Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. The annual Border Patrol budget stood at$3.6 billion in FY 2014. The Border Patrol has at its command a wide array of surveillance technologies: ground radar, cameras, motion detectors, thermal imaging sensors, stadium lighting, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

What are our obligations under international law?

The United States has entered into treaties with other countries to ensure the protection and safe passage of refugees. Among the most important are the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Under these treaties, the United States may not return an individual to a country where he or she faces persecution from a government or a group the government is unable or unwilling to control based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. A separate treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, prohibits the return of people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe they may be tortured.

The United States has implemented these treaties in various laws and regulations. They form the basis for both our refugee program and asylum program. (An asylee is simply a refugee whose case is determined in the United States, rather than outside it.) In fact, under our laws, anyone in the United States may seek asylum, with some exceptions, or protection from torture with no exceptions. It can be difficult and complicated to determine whether an individual has a valid claim for asylum or protection from torture. To meet its protection obligations, the United States should ensure that children are safe, have an understanding of their situation and their rights, and have adequate representation when they tell their stories to a judge.

Do Central American children qualify for protections under international and U.S. law?

Many of the children fleeing to the United States have international protection needs and could be eligible for humanitarian relief. According to UNHCR's survey of 404 unaccompanied children from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, 58 percent "were forcibly displaced because they suffered or faced harms that indicated a potential or actual need for international protection." Notably, of those surveyed, UNHCR thought 72 percent of the children from El Salvador, 57 percent from Honduras, and 38 percent from Guatemala could merit protection. While international protection standards are in some cases broader than current U.S. laws, the fact that over 50 percent of the children UNHCR surveyed might qualify as refugees suggests that a thorough and fair review of these children's claims is necessary to prevent them from being returned to danger.

Moreover, children may qualify for particular U.S. forms of humanitarian relief for victims of trafficking and crime, or for children who have been abused or abandoned by a parent. A 2010 survey conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice indicated that 40 percent of children screened while in government custody could be eligible for relief from removal under U.S. laws. Given their age, the complexity of their claims, and the trauma that generally accompanies their journey, determining whether these children qualify for some form of protection can be a time-consuming process.

What types of U.S. immigration relief do children potentially qualify for?

The most common types of U.S. immigration relief for which children potentially are eligible include:

Asylum: Asylum is a form of international protection granted to refugees who are present in the United States. In order to qualify for asylum, a person must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS): SIJS is a humanitarian form of relief available to noncitizen minors who were abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both parents. To be eligible for SIJS, a child must be under 21, unmarried, and the subject of certain dependency orders issued by a juvenile court.

U visas: A U visa is available to victims of certain crimes. To be eligible, the person must have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse and have cooperated with law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

T visas: A T visa is available to individuals who have been victims of a severe form of trafficking. To be eligible, the person must demonstrate that he or she would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual or severe harm if removed from the United States.

What is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)?

The original Trafficking Victims Protection Act was signed into law in 2000 to address human trafficking concerns. It was subsequently reauthorized during both the Bush and Obama Administrations in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2013.

The TVPRA of 2008, signed by President Bush, responded to concerns that unaccompanied children apprehended by the Border Patrol "were not being adequately screened" for eligibility for protection or relief in the United States. The TVPRA also directed the development of procedures to ensure that if unaccompanied children are deported, they are safely repatriated. At the outset, unaccompanied children must be screened as potential victims of human trafficking. However, as described further below, procedural protections for children are different for children from contiguous countries (i.e., Mexico and Canada) and non-contiguous countries (all others). While children from non-contiguous countries are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for trafficking screening, and placed into formal immigration court removal proceedings, Mexican and Canadian children are screened by CBP for trafficking and, if no signs of trafficking or fear of persecution are reported, may be summarily returned home pursuant to negotiated repatriation agreements. The TVPRA in 2008 also ensured that unaccompanied alien children are exempt from certain limitations on asylum (e.g., a one-year filing deadline). It also required HHS to ensure "to the greatest extent practicable" that unaccompanied children in HHS custody have counsel, as described further below-not only "to represent them in legal proceedings," but to "protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking."

Can new arrivals obtain a grant of Temporary Protected Status?

Although Salvadorans and Guatemalans in the United States have been eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the past, there currently is no category that would include children or families arriving today or at any point since the spring of 2014. TPS is a limited immigration status that allows an individual to remain temporarily in the United States because of civil war, natural disasters, or other emergency situations that make it difficult for a country to successfully reintegrate people. TPS requires a formal designation by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and requires, among other things, that a country formally request this designation from the U.S. government.

How have other countries in the region responded to the increase in child migrants?

Mexico, with support from the United States, has responded to the increasing number of children and families fleeing Central America by expanding its security measures along its southern border as well as its internal enforcement. Part of the Mexican government's southern border security plan is funded through the Mérida Initiative and as of October 2014, about $1.3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance went to Mexico through this initiative.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, migrants report an "increased presence of immigration officials in pickup trucks patrolling the roads and bus stations en route to the train line. Raids on hotels and restaurants where migrants shelter in traditional cities [i.e., cities along previously established migrant routes] have occurred. And immigration agents, in raids supported by federal police and the military, are targeting the trains, removing migrants from the train cars and detaining them. The companies that run the cargo trains on whose roofs migrants travel (referred to as "La Bestia") also are working with the Mexican government to increase train speed in order to prevent migrants from riding on them.

Deportations from Mexico to the Northern Triangle countries increased significantly over the course of 2014, and this trend has continued into 2015. Mexico apprehended more than 15,795 minors between January and August of 2014, compared to 9,727 minors for all of 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Mexican government, Mexico deported 3,819 unaccompanied minors from Central America during the first five months of FY 2015 - a 56% increase over the same period from FY 2014.

A report by the Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law School found that while "Mexican officials are supposed to screen unaccompanied children for international protection needs, they often fail to meet this responsibility." The report also found that the detention conditions deterred children from accessing the asylum process and that the Mexican government is failing to consistently inform children of their rights or screen them for international protection eligibility. Without these practices, the report argued, "current practices place a burden on migrant children to investigate the law and procedures and affirmatively apply for asylum."

What is in-country processing?

In November 2014, the U.S. Department of State announced the launch of its in-country refugee processing program in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The program is intended "to provide a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently undertaking to the United States." The new program allows parents from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who are lawfully present in the United States to submit an application to have their children join them in the United States if they qualify for refugee status or humanitarian parole.

Parents may submit applications for this program to the State Department. Once the application is submitted, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) will work with the child in country and invite them to pre-screening interviews. Both the child and the parent will have to submit to DNA testing to ensure the biological relationship, and DHS will conduct an interview for refugee eligibility. As with all refugees, the children will have to submit to and pass security checks to be eligible for refugee status. If they do not qualify for refugee status, it is possible that they may qualify for humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis. Although humanitarian parole permits a person to travel safely to the United Sates to reunite with a parent, unlike refugee status, it does not provide a path to citizenship.

While this program will help some eligible children and their parents, its impact is expected to be limited. Any refugees admitted under this program would count against the current limit of 4,000 refugee admissions for Latin America and the Caribbean. In contrast, 68,541 children crossed the border in FY 2014. The program itself is rigorous, and its requirements-a parent with legal status and DNA and security checks-will limit who qualifies. Eleanor Acer of Human Rights First argued that "[p]ractically speaking, the program will need to actually extend protection in a timely manner to a meaningful number of applicants if it is to be viewed as a credible alternative to some families with at-risk children." Additionally, Acer note that in the past, U.S. officers have used "the existence of in-country resettlement...to limit access to protection."

Procedures and Policies: What happens to children and families when they arrive at the border?

How are unaccompanied children treated compared to adults and children arriving in families?

How a noncitizen is treated upon apprehension depends on where the person is apprehended (near the border or in the interior), what country he or she is from (a contiguous country or a noncontiguous country), and whether he or she is an unaccompanied minor.

Adults and families, when apprehended in the interior, typically are placed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. However, that is not necessarily the case for adults or families apprehended at or near the border. In FY 2013, 83 percent of adults removed by the U.S. were deported through summary, out-of-court removal proceedings by a DHS officer rather than appearing before an immigration judge. The most common summary removal processes are expedited removal, used when a noncitizen encounters immigration authorities at or within 100 miles of a U.S. border with insufficient or fraudulent documents, and reinstatement of removal, used when a noncitizen unlawfully reenters after a prior removal order.

As discussed in detail below, unaccompanied children receive greater protections under U.S. law.

What happens to unaccompanied children once they are in U.S. custody?

The majority of unaccompanied children encountered at the border are apprehended, processed, and initially detained by CBP. Unlike adults or families, though, unaccompanied children cannot be placed into expedited removal proceedings.

Children from non-contiguous countries, such as El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, are placed into standard removal proceedings in immigration court. CBP must transfer custody of these children to Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), within 72 hours, as described below.

Each child from a contiguous country-Mexico or Canada-must be screened by a CBP officer to determine if he or she is unable to make independent decisions, is a victim of trafficking, or fears persecution in his home country. If none of these conditions apply, CBP will immediately send the child back to Mexico or Canada through a process called "voluntary return." Return occurs pursuant to agreements with Mexico and Canada to manage the repatriation process.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed concern that CBP is the "wrong agency" to screen children for signs of trauma, abuse, or persecution. The public justice group Appleseed issued a report that stated, "as a practical matter" CBP screening "translates into less searching inquiries regarding any danger they are in and what legal rights they may have." Appleseed also expressed concern that the U.S.-Mexico repatriation agreement has been geared towards "protocols of repatriations logistics," rather than best practices for child welfare.

Do children get attorneys?

In general, children facing deportation-just like adults facing deportation-are not provided government-appointed counsel to represent them in immigration court. Under the immigration laws, all persons have the "privilege" of being represented "at no expense to the Government." This means that only those individuals who can afford a private lawyer or those who are able to find pro bono counsel to represent them free of charge are represented in immigration court. And, although Congress has directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure the provision of counsel to unaccompanied children "to the greatest extent practicable," Congress further explained that the Secretary "shall make every effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide representation to such children without charge."

A vast network of pro bono legal service providers has responded to the call, and during the past year, the Obama Administration provided some funding to legal service providers in order to increase representation for unaccompanied children. The justice AmeriCorps program, announced in June 2014, awarded $1.8 million for representation of certain children in immigration court, and HHS subsequently provided an additional $9 million for representation in FY 2014 and FY 2015.

But while pro bono legal service providers represent many children nationwide, they still are unable to meet the need. As of April 2015, children in over 38,000 pending cases remained unrepresented. These children are forced to appear before an immigration judge and navigate the immigration court process, including putting on a legal defense, without any legal representation. In contrast, DHS, which acts as the prosecutor in immigration court and argues for the child's deportation, is represented in every case by a lawyer trained in immigration law. As a result, advocates, including the American Immigration Council, filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging the federal government's failure to provide children with legal representation in immigration court. The case, JEFM v. Holder, is currently pending before a federal district court in Washington State.

How have immigration courts responded to the increased volume of cases?

In the summer of 2014, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the division within the Department of Justice which houses the immigration courts, adopted a new policy with respect to prioritizing cases for adjudication. The stated goal of this new policy was to "[f]ocus the department's immigration processing resources on recent border crossers" (i.e., individuals who arrived on or after May 1, 2014). Under the policy, the immigration courts are to prioritize the following cases: (1) unaccompanied children who recently crossed the southwest border; (2) families who recently crossed the border and are held in detention; (3) families who recently crossed the border but are on "alternatives to detention" and (4) other detained cases. Immigration courts now schedule a first hearing for unaccompanied children within 21 days of the court's receiving the case. Given the speed at which these cases progress, the expedited children's dockets often are referred to as "rocket dockets." Children on the rocket dockets may be provided with less time to find attorneys before immigration courts move forward with their cases-and, as a result, may be required to explain why they should not be deported without the help of an attorney. If they are unable to do so, unrepresented children may be ordered removed or required to "voluntarily" depart from the United States.

Can unaccompanied children be detained?

Yes, but special laws govern the custody of children based on child welfare standards that take the "best interests" of the child into account. Unaccompanied children must be transferred by DHS to the custody of HHS within 72 hours of apprehension, under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and TVPRA of 2008. HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) then manages custody and care of the children until they can be released to family members or other individuals or organizations while their court proceedings go forward.

Under the TVPRA of 2008, HHS is required to "promptly place" each child in its custody "in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child." As such, children in ORR care are generally housed through a network of state-licensed, ORR-funded care providers, who are tasked with providing educational, health, and case management services to the children.

Under international law, children "should in principle not be detained at all," according to UNHCR. Detention, if used, should only be a "measure of last resort" for the "shortest appropriate period of time," with an overall "ethic of care." Detention has "well-documented" negative effects on children's mental and physical development, including severe harm such as anxiety, depression, or long-term cognitive damage, especially when it is indefinite in nature.

Children who arrive with a parent may be detained by DHS in family detention centers, described below.

Can unaccompanied children be released from custody?

Yes. ORR seeks to reunify children with family members or release them to other individual or organizational sponsors whenever possible, on the grounds that children's best interests are served by living in a family setting. ORR also is required to ensure that individuals taking custody of the children are able to provide for their well-being. Federal regulations, following a court settlement in the case Flores v. Reno, outline the following preferences for sponsors: (1) a parent; (2) a legal guardian; (3) an adult relative; (4) an adult individual or entity designated by the child's parent or legal guardian; (5) a licensed program willing to accept legal custody; or (6) an adult or entity approved by ORR. The sponsor must agree to ensure that the child attends immigration court.

As of May 2014, ORR reported that the average length of stay in its facilities was approximately 35 days and that about 85 percent of the children served are released while their deportation proceedings are in progress.

Does the Government detain families?

Yes. The increase in families fleeing violence and arriving at the southwest border-frequently mothers with children-has reignited a debate over the appropriate treatment of families in the immigration system. Family immigration detention has a complicated and troubled history in the U.S.

Prior to 2006, ICE commonly detained parents and children separately. In FY 2006 appropriations language, however, Congress directed ICE to either "release families," use "alternatives to detention such as the Intensive Supervised Appearance Program," or, if necessary, use "appropriate" detention space to house families together. ICE responded by opening the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Texas, with over 500 beds for families. But, as the Women's Refugee Commission explained, the "Residential Center" was a "former criminal facility that still look[ed] and [felt] like a prison." The Hutto detention center became the subject of a lawsuit, a human rights investigation, multiple national and international media reports, and a national campaign to end family detention. In 2009, ICE ended the use of family detention at Hutto, withdrew plans for three new family detention centers, and said that detention would be used more "thoughtfully and humanely."

Yet, in the summer of 2014, in response to the increase in families fleeing violence and arriving at the southwest border, the federal government established a makeshift detention center on the grounds of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, a remote location more than three hours' drive from the nearest major city. According to the DHS Secretary, the detention and prompt removal of families was intended to deter others from coming to the United States.

Over the course of the summer and fall 2014, over hundreds of women and children were detained in Artesia. The facility was ultimately closed several months later, but the government has continued its policy of detaining women and children. Currently families are housed in three facilities: the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas, and Berks Family Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania. Both the Dilley and Karnes facilities are owned and operated by private prison companies. By the end of May 2015, Dilley's capacity will be 2,400, making it by far the largest family detention center in the United States.

Family detention is rarely in the "best interests of the child," as opposed to community-based alternatives. Detaining children leads to serious mental health problems and chronic illnesses, and detaining families can have long-lasting effects on the psychological well-being of both parents and children.

In 2014 and 2015, several detained families filed lawsuits to challenge various aspects of family detention. One case challenges the government's policy of detaining families as a means to deter others from coming to the United States. In this case, RILR v. Johnson, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from using deterrence as a factor in making a bond determination. In a second case, lawyers for children held in family detention facilities have claimed that the government is violating the terms of the settlement agreement in Flores, discussed above. This settlement established national standards for the detention, release and treatment of children detained by DHS for deportation.

Can alternatives to detention be used for families?

Yes. ICE operates two alternatives to detention (ATD) programs for adult detainees-a "full service" program with case management, supervision, and monitoring (either by GPS or telephone check-in), and a "technology-only" program with monitoring only. According to U.S. government data, 95 percent of participants in ICE's full service program appeared at scheduled court hearings from fiscal years 2011 to 2013. Further, in FY 2012 only 4 percent were arrested by another law enforcement agency. ICE's alternatives program, as well as being more humane, is also less expensive than detention-$10.55/day as opposed to $158/day. As to asylum seekers, a prior U.S. government-commissioned study found that "asylum seekers do not need to be detained to appear," and "[t]hey also do not seem to need intensive supervision." Bipartisan support has emerged for alternatives to immigration detention. ICE, in early 2015, issued requests for proposals for "family case management services" for up to 300 families apiece in Baltimore/Washington, NYC/Newark, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

U.S. Government Response and Proposed Solutions

During the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration's response to Central American children and families arriving in the U.S. focused largely on enforcement measures, rather than humanitarian measures that had previously received legislative support, and would have been more tailored towards the vulnerable arriving population.

The Administration requested significant funding to support an "aggressive deterrence strategy" and implemented family detention and "rocket dockets" for children and families. Its in-country refugee processing program has been expected to assist relatively few people. Congressional legislative proposals, at the time and since, have largely focused on rolling back procedural protections for children. That said, proposals also exist to more holistically protect children and families reaching the United States, several of which passed the Senate in 2013 as part of its comprehensive immigration reform bill.

U.S. Government Response-Administration's and Congress' Actions

The following table summarizes the Administration's and Congress' major actions since summer 2014:

President Obama

Declared " urgent humanitarian situation " and directed a coordinated federal response under emergency homeland security authorities.

June 30, 2014

President Obama

Sent letter to Congressional leaders declaring intent to seek emergency funding for "an aggressive deterrence strategy focused on the removal and repatriation of recent border crossers."

President Obama

Sent letter to Speaker Boehner (attaching OMB analysis) requesting $3.7 billion in emergency appropriations. Request included:

HHS: $1.8 billion for care of unaccompanied children

DHS-ICE: $1.1 billion (incl. $879 million for detention and removal)

DHS-CBP: $432 million (incl. $364 million for additional apprehensions)

State: $295 million in Central American foreign aid

DOJ-EOIR: $45 million for additional immigration judges, $15 million to provide lawyers for children.

July 31, 2014

Bill to provide $2.7 billion in emergency appropriations failed in procedural vote.

August 1, 2014

House of Representatives

Passed legislation to repeal DACA.

Also passed legislation to provide $694 million in emergency appropriations, and the "Secure the Southwest Border Act" to roll back procedural protections for Central American unaccompanied children.

August 1, 2014

Announced intent to transfer $405 million from other DHS programs to address humanitarian challenge. Congressional Appropriations Committees finished approving transfers to ICE on August 6.

ICE began to detain families at Karnes, TX detention facility.

December 16, 2014

Congress and President Obama

FY 2015 "Cromnibus" appropriations bill, signed by President, provided:

HHS: $80 million increase to care for unaccompanied children

State: $260 million to implement a "prevention and response strategy" in Central America

DOJ-EOIR: $35 million increase for immigration courts

Education: $14 million to assist state and local educational agencies experiencing increases in immigrant youth.

February 2, 2015

President Obama and DHS

The Administration's request for DHS funding for FY 2016 included:

DHS-ICE: $893 million for salaries and expenses over FY '15 request, incl. $615 million increase for detention ($435 million for family detention)

DHS-CBP: $743 million increase for salaries and expenses over FY '15 request.

March 4, 2015

Congress and President Obama

FY 2015 DHS Appropriations bill, signed by President, provided:

DHS-ICE: $703 million increase for salaries and expenses, incl. $539 million increase for detention ($362 million for family detention)

DHS-CBP: $314 million increase for salaries and expenses over FY '14.

Recent Legislative Proposals

Since the summer of 2014, most legislative proposals have focused on rolling back the procedural protections that the TVPRA affords to Central American unaccompanied children. For example, the House's 2014 "Secure the Southwest Border Act" would have amended the TVPRA to (1) treat children from non-contiguous countries similarly to Mexican and Canadian children, but (2) strike the current requirement that the child be able to make an "independent decision to withdraw the child's application for admission" before proceeding with voluntary return; (3) require those children who may have been trafficked or fear return [or require the remaining children] to appear before an immigration judge for a hearing within 14 days of screening; and (4) impose mandatory detention until that hearing.

Other proposals have offered variations on these themes. For example, the "Protection of Children Act of 2015," which the House Judiciary Committee moved forward on March 4, 2015, would enact the above four changes-but additionally, expand from 72 hours to 30 days the time limit for CBP to transfer remaining unaccompanied children to HHS custody. That bill, among others, also proposes restricting HHS' ability to provide counsel to unaccompanied children. Or, the "HUMANE Act," sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) in 2014, would have gone further to place children with a fear of return into a new 7-day expedited process, during which the child would be required to prove her eligibility for immigration relief to an immigration judge while mandatorily detained, before moving on to a standard removal proceeding in immigration court.

Proposed Solutions

Before summer 2014, bipartisan support existed for legislative reforms to more holistically protect children and families reaching the United States. Since then, NGOs and advocacy groups have reiterated support for those reforms, as well as for aid to address root causes of child and family migration from Central America.

These reforms include:

Incorporating a "best interests of the child" standard into all decision-making, not just custody decisions. Bipartisan immigration reform legislation which passed the Senate in 2013 (S. 744) would have required the Border Patrol, in making repatriation decisions, to give "due consideration" to the best interests of a child, "family unity," and "humanitarian concerns." Amendment 1340 to S. 744, which was not voted on as part of a compromise, would have made the best interests of a child the "primary consideration" in all federal decisions involving unaccompanied immigrant children. Organizations have also recommended adopting more child-specific procedures.

Child welfare screening to replace or augment Border Patrol screening. Border Patrol agents are currently tasked with screening Mexican and Canadian children for trafficking and persecution and preventing their return to persecutors or abusers. NGOs have uniformly questioned Border Patrol's ability to do so adequately, and reform proposals have ranged from improved training for CBP officers (included in S. 744), to pairing CBP screeners with child welfare experts (also in S. 744) or NGO representatives, to replacing CBP screeners with USCIS asylum officers. CBP Commissioner Kerlikowske recently expressed openness towards similar proposals.

Due process protections and resources. NGOs have advocated for a system that provides procedural protections and resources to appropriately protect children and families from violence, under international and U.S. laws, without unduly delaying decision making. Proposals include appointed counsel, additional resources to legal orientation programs and additional resources to backlogged immigration courts (all included in S. 744). More recent proposals also include additional U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officers, and additional post-release caseworker services, to protect children, assist families, and ensure attendance at proceedings.

Detention reforms. NGOs have proposed that children be detained as little as possible, released to families or other sponsors whenever appropriate, and if detained, supervised in a community-based setting because of detention's severe impact on children. At least one Senator has promised legislation to end the detention of asylum-seeking families if no family member poses a threat to the public or a flight risk. Along these lines, organizations and legislators have recommended improving detention conditions, and expanding alternatives to detention (as S. 744 proposed), by reallocating detention funding to those cheaper alternatives.

Aid to sending countries. NGOs have proposed aid to sending countries and Mexico, to invest in systems that protect and care for children, help youth live productive lives, and ultimately reduce violence and address root causes of flight. In January 2015, the White House announced it was seeking $1 billion in Central American assistance in its FY 2016 budget.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies and Responses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Immigration Council is updating this Guide which was first issued in summer 2014. It provides information about the tens of thousands of children-some travelling with their parents and others alone-who have fled their homes in Central America and arrived at our southern border. This Guide seeks to explain the basics.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Happens When Kids Cross the U.S. Border alone (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
What Happens When Kids Cross the U.S. Border alone (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Did the government really "lose" nearly 1,500 kids who illegally crossed the border into the United States without their parents? And are any of them in New Jersey?

A Trump administration official made headlines last month when he testified before a Senate committee that his department was unsure of "the whereabouts of 1,475 unaccompanied alien children" apprehended at the border.

The revelation sparked the #WhereAretheChildren movement on social media -- and a protest Wednesday night in Newark -- questioning whether the government is properly caring for kids who cross the U.S. border alone.

Government officials fired back this week, saying the idea that the 1,475 kids are "lost" is a mischaracterization. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials said they failed to make contact during an audit of the "sponsor families" that took in the unaccompanied children, perhaps because the families simply didn't answer the phone.

Many of the sponsors are relatives of the children who are living in the country illegally themselves and are reluctant to check in with federal authorities, government officials said.

"This is the core of this issue: In many cases, HHS has been put in the position of placing illegal aliens with the individuals who helped arrange for them to enter the country illegally," said Health and Human Services Department Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan.

The controversy has put a spotlight on the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement program that oversees the care of of immigrant kids arriving in the U.S. alone -- including nearly 2,300 sent to live in New Jersey last year.
How many unaccompanied immigrants kids are here?
Some are teenagers who sneak over the U.S.-Mexico border with friends. Others are young children smuggled into the country by "coyotes" hired by their parents. A few are kids fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries by simply walking into the U.S. alone.

Immigration authorities apprehended 42,497 unaccompanied minors -- ranging in age from babies to 17 year olds -- and placed them with sponsor families during fiscal year 2017 (which runs from October 2016 to September 2017), according to federal statistics.

Another 19,658 children were placed with sponsor families during the first half of fiscal year 2018, according to the statistics.

Federal law says the government must feed, shelter or find sponsor families to house the kids while they await immigration hearings to see if the children should be deported or permitted to stay.

Some of the children end up in shelters run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. But, most end up living with U.S. sponsor families, usually parents, relatives or friends the children name when they cross the border.
How many of the kids are in New Jersey?
New Jersey ranks seventh in the nation in the number of unaccompanied immigrant children sent to live with sponsor families in the state. (California, Texas and Florida top the list.)

There were 2,268 unaccompanied children released to families in New Jersey after they were taken into custody by immigration officials in fiscal year 2017, according to federal statistics.

Another 1,053 minors who crossed in to the U.S. without their parents were placed with sponsor families in New Jersey in the first seven months of fiscal year 2018, according to the statistics.
Where are they living?
The 10 New Jersey counties with the most unaccompanied immigrant children living with sponsor families in fiscal year 2017 were:
10) Monmouth County
Fiscal year 2017: 65 children

Fiscal year 2016: 87 children
9) Passaic County
Fiscal year 2017: 68 children

Fiscal year 2016: 105 children
8) Camden County
Fiscal year 2017: 74 children

Fiscal year 2016: 73 children
7) Middlesex County
Fiscal year 2017: 130 children

Fiscal year 2016: 87 children
6) Morris County
Fiscal year 2017: 144 children

Fiscal year 2016: 126 children
5) Essex County
Fiscal year 2017: 228 children

Fiscal year 2016: 288 children
4) Mercer County
Fiscal year 2017: 243 children

Fiscal year 2016: 193 children
3) Bergen County
Fiscal year 2017: 250 children

Fiscal year 2016: 281 children
2) Hudson County
Fiscal year 2017: 314 children

Fiscal year 2016: 367 children
1) Union County
Fiscal year 2017: 489 children

Fiscal year 2016: 669 children
Did the U.S. government "lose" any of the immigrant children placed in New Jersey?
It is unclear if any of the immigrant children in New Jersey were included in the 1,475 minors federal officials said they were unable to account for because their sponsor families did not respond to attempts to contact them.

Federal officials did not break down where the 1,475 children and their sponsor families were living.

Randi Mandelbaum, a Rutgers University law professor and director of the school's Child Advocacy Clinic, said she often helps represent immigrant children and their sponsor families in court.

In many cases, the "lost" children are safe with their sponsor families, but the families may be reluctant to speak with any immigration officials as the government has been stepping up efforts to deport unauthorized immigrants in New Jersey and nationwide.

"The family may be too scared to come to the phone if ICE is involved," Mandelbaum said.

Of the 7,635 sponsor families the government tried to reach between October and December of last year, 1,475 could not be reached, according to the department's Congressional testimony. Another 6,075 of the children were safe and still living with their sponsors, 52 had moved to live with someone else, 28 kids had run away and five had been deported, according federal officials.
Were these children taken from their parents at the border?
No. There has been a lot of confusion over how the 1,475 children the U.S. government lost track of originally arrived in the U.S.

Though several #WhereAreTheChildren activists have said the 1,475 kids were ripped from their parents' arms after they illegally crossed the border into the U.S., that is not true. All of the 1,475 children are in a program for kids who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors, government officials said.

There is another controversial program implemented by the Trump Administration that is separating children from their parents if they are caught illegally crossing the border. Those children are placed in shelters -- but they are not placed with sponsor families like kids caught crossing the border without their parents, federal officials said.
Where do most of the kids arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border alone come from?
More than 90 percent of the unaccompanied children caught sneaking into the U.S. illegally are from three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Many are fleeing high homicide rates, gang activity, violence and poverty in their troubled countries, according to surveys of migrants from the region.
Do most of the unaccompanied immigrant kids end up getting deported?
Once they are placed with their sponsor families, the children are placed in deportation proceedings in immigration court. However, they can apply to stay in the U.S., said Mandelbaum, the Rutgers professor whose clinic helps get the children free legal representation.

Many apply for asylum, arguing in court that they would face persecution if sent back to their home countries based on the race, political opinion, nationality or other reasons.

Others ask the court for special immigrant juvenile status to remain in the U.S. for children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned.

The process is lengthy, Mandelbaum said.

"It's quicker these days for asylum -- that's going to be a year or two," she said. "For special immigrant juvenile status, it's getting longer -- upwards of three to five years."

About 70 percent of the immigrant children who go to court with a lawyer are successful in getting to stay in the U.S., Mandelbaum said. Only about 15 percent of the children who don't have legal representation get to stay.
What's next?
The #WhereAretheChildren movement on social media has reignited the debate over how the U.S. is dealing with illegal immigration.

The issue has also added to the debate over the Trump administration's controversial policy of separating from children from their parents after they arrive as a family as the U.S. border seeking asylum.

Trump administration officials said the problems tracking unaccompanied immigrant children is a symptom of a broken immigration system.

"In the worst cases, these loopholes are being exploited by human traffickers and violent gangs like MS-13. Until these laws are fixed, the American taxpayer is paying the bill for costly programs that aggravate the problem and put children in dangerous situations," Hargan, the deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement.
Read more about unauthorized immigrants in New Jersey Kelly Heyboer may be reached at kheyboer@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @KellyHeyboer. Find her at KellyHeyboerReporter on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens when kids cross the U.S. border alone? Thousands end up in these 10 N.J. counties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did the government really "lose" nearly 1,500 kids who illegally crossed the border into the United States without their parents? And are any of them in New Jersey? A Trump administration official made headlines last month when he testified before a Senate committee that his department was unsure of "the whereabouts of 1,475 unaccompanied alien children" apprehended at the border.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tedx Talk: How Immigrants Shape(d) The United States (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tedx Talk: How Immigrants Shape(d) The United States (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Immigrants Shape(d) the United States | Nalini Krishnankutty | TEDxPSU

# data[].attributes.headline
Map: Immigration Numbers by State (Text)

# data[].attributes.subject
Map: Immigration Numbers by State (Text)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Map the Impact Click and drag the map to learn more about your city, state, or district - or use the search box to find your Congressional district. You can learn more about our research methodology here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The DACA-Eligible Population

DACA-eligible people contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Clawing back the protections afforded to DACA recipients will likely upset local economies, communities, and schools, hurting employers and businesses dependent these young immigrants as workers and customers.

Filling Jobs in Key Industries

Most undocumented immigrants come to the United States because of work opportunities. These individuals are far more likely than the rest of the population to be in the prime of their working years, ranging in age from 25-64. Studies also indicate that undocumented immigrants are not displacing U.S.-born workers. Rather, they are filling jobs that few Americans are interested in pursuing. ¹ One sector, in particular, offers a striking illustration: Undocumented immigrants account for 50 percent of all hired field and crop workers, making them essential to the success and continued viability of American farms. ²

Sources:
¹ Maria E. Enchautegui, "Immigrant and Native Workers Compete for Different Low-Skilled Jobs," Urban Institute, 2015. Available online.
² Thomas Hertz Zahniser Steven, "USDA Economic Research Service - Immigration and the Rural Workforce," United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2013. Available online.

Economic Contributors, not Criminals

Contrary to popular rhetoric, undocumented immigration is not linked to a spike in U.S. crime rates. Between 1990 and 2013, a period when the number of undocumented immigrants more than tripled, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. fell by 48 percent. ³ Instead of committing crimes, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the country are working ⁴ and paying into our tax system. ⁵ And because they are ineligible for most federal benefits, experts have long argued they are net contributors to the Medicare and Social Security programs. ⁶ They have a similar impact at the state and local level. Even in Florida and Arizona, states with large undocumented populations, immigrants pay more in state and local taxes than they draw down in public resources like education each year. ⁷

Sources:
³ Walter Ewing, Daniel E. Martinez, and Ruben G. Rumbaut, "The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States" (American Immigration Council, July 13, 2015). Available online.
⁴ George J. Borjas, "The Labor Supply of Undocumented Immigrants," NBER Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2016). Available online.
⁵ Lisa Christensen Gee, Matthew Gardener, and Meg Wiehe, "Undocumented Immigrants' State & Local Tax Contributions," The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2016. Available online.
⁶ Roy Germano, "Unauthorized Immigrants Paid $100 Billion Into Social Security Over Last Decade," VICE News, 2014. Available online.
⁷ Emily Eisenhauer et al., "Immigrants in Florida: Characteristics and Contributions," Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy, Florida International University, 2007. Available online.
Judith Gans, "Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts" (Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, 2008). Available online.

Starting Businesses, Creating Jobs

Despite financing and licensing obstacles, undocumented immigrants frequently start their own businesses. In 2014, almost 10 percent of the working-age undocumented population were entrepreneurs. In more than 20 states, they boast higher rates of entrepreneurship than either legal permanent residents or citizens of the same age group. These self-employed workers frequently create American jobs. Their companies also generated $17.2 billion in business income in 2014.

Costs of Deportation

More than eight out of 10 undocumented immigrants have lived in America for more than five years. Setting aside the question of whether policymakers have the political will to deport millions of individuals so well established in our society, studies indicate that any such effort would come at an enormous cost. The economist Doug Holtz-Eakin's American Action Forum conducted one study on the cost of mass deportation. ⁸ By even the most conservative estimates, finding, apprehending, detaining, processing, and transporting the undocumented population would deal a Great Recession-like blow to the U.S. economy.

Sources:
⁸ Ben Gitis and Laura Collins, "The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration: Alternative Strategies" (American Action Forum, March 6, 2015). Available online.

Cautionary Tales

Deporting the estimated 8.1 million undocumented immigrants in the workforce would not automatically create 8.1 million jobs for unemployed Americans. The reasons are twofold: By shrinking the number of consumers, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers, mass deportation would shrink our economy and the number of jobs available. Secondly, natives and immigrants often possess different skills and education levels, meaning they are imperfect substitutes. ⁹ Data from Arizona and Alabama, two states with strict immigration laws, offer cautionary tales. ¹⁰

Sources:
⁹ "Immigration Myths and Facts" (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, April 14, 2016). Available online.
¹⁰ Bob Davis, "The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2016, sec. Economy. Available online.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Samuel Addy, "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Alabama Immigration Law" (Center for Business and Economic Research, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of Alabama, January 2012). Available online.

Economic Impact of a Path to Legalization

If Congress provided a path to legalization for the millions of undocumented immigrants already here, the economic benefits would be sizable. While legal status would increase access to a variety of public benefits programs, it would also allow newly legalized immigrants to pursue new job opportunities, boosting productivity and earnings. The accompanying increase in consumer spending and tax revenue would help federal, state, and local governments offset associated costs. If undocumented immigrants were required to pay back taxes, U.S. tax revenues would see a further boost. ¹³

Sources:
¹³ Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford, "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants," Center for American Progress, 2013. Available online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undocumented Immigrants and the U.S. Economy - New American Economy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DACA-eligible people contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Clawing back the protections afforded to DACA recipients will likely upset local economies, communities, and schools, hurting employers and businesses dependent these young immigrants as workers and customers. Most undocumented immigrants come to the United States because of work opportunities.