Claude Thau vs. Prager on Medical Aid in Dying

 My email to Prager University:

PragerU prides itself on its values, which include individual rights, clear presentation and truth.  As someone who respects PragerU, I find that its video (Why Is Assisted Suicide on the Rise? | PragerU) embarrassingly fails PragerU’s standards. 

I’ll stick to MAID in the USA to have consistent laws to discuss, thereby making arguments clearer. 

Prager stands for limited government interference in your life.  If the government said “You grew up in Pennsylvania, so you can’t move to Florida”, Prager would be (rightfully) upset.  But if I have less than six months to live, am in great pain, and want to release my soul to move to heaven a few weeks early and to die in peace with my support system around me, Prager thinks the government should step in and forbid that right to me.

PragerU describes MAID as “government-assisted death” but MAID laws specifically exclude the government from the decision.  PragerU opposes MAID laws, wanting the government to step in to forbid MAID.

PragerU asks people if they would “push” someone off a bridge to help them commit suicide and asks if they wouldn’t do it, is it right for the government to push them.  In addition to its continual misstatement regarding government involvement, Prager adds the hugely misleading concept of someone being “pushed” to engage MAID.  PragerU “conveniently” failed to mention that:

1. Two independent physicians must have independently concluded that the person has less than six months to live and must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
2. There is a 15-day waiting period.
3. Two witnesses and the person exercising MAID must attest that no one is exerting undue interest.
4. A physicians must discuss all alternatives with the person.  Indeed, studies have shown that the MAID process results in more usage of hospice, palliative care and pain management, very different from the person on the bridge..

If the government is pushing people to opt for MAID, you’d expect the usage of MAID to be higher among those who are poor, have less advanced education, racial and ethnic minorities, etc.  However, usage of MAID is lower for those populations.

In fairness, PragerU’s question mentions that the lady on the bridge has terminal cancer, but envisioning people jumping from bridges brings to mind someone forfeiting many years of life (with MAID, they are estimated to give up 3.3 weeks of life (two physicians have independently determined that the person is expected to die within six months and people take a long time to make the MAID decision, often not doing it.) 

Indeed, the availability of MAID can reduce suicides.  My mother committed suicide while healthy because she feared that she would lose her health and lose control of her life.  I could provide more detail about how and why that fear was so strong in a person of mental and physical health.  If she had lived in a state with MAID laws, she absolutely would not have committed suicide per her conversation with me.  She likely lost many good years of life (she was 76) because her government wouldn’t give her the right to later end her life a little early on her own volition.

When contemplating people who jump off a bridge, people think of someone who doesn’t like his/her life.  Au contraire, people who opt for MAID love their life, but they are already in the death process.  Their life has been taken from them.  In a sense, MAID is preserving the body as it was, before it disintegrates.  Unlike people jumping from a bridge, there is no chance of turning their life around.

The person on the bridge is alone.  With MAID, people die with their loved one and support system around them.  This is a huge difference which PragerU chose not to disclose.

The person on a bridge is in a strange environment and about to plunge in a cold river which will result in their body being disfigured and taken their body God-knows-where.  The person exercising MAID dies in comfort, body intact, at home with loved ones fully cognizant and prepared to take next steps.  PragerU also chose to bury this distinction.

Family members deal with MAID much more easily because they are privy to their loved ones intent and can be present if they wish.  It is significant that we do not receive complaints from family about the MAID process.

Some people say we should not interfere with God’s will (Prager U did not make that argument), but in end-of-life, some people want to force us to interfere with God’s will by taking extreme means to stay alive.

PragerU says “it starts with just cancer patients, then its people with chronic fatigue, then its people with mental illness”.  In fact, chronic fatigue and mental illness are specifically excluded.  Separate laws would have to be proposed and debated to extend the eligible situations.

PragerU, in a tactic that is characteristic of debaters who can’t win a clear argument, shifts from country-to- country in its arguments.  Referring to Netherlands, the speaker says that every year the number exercising MAID goes up, while the small print table actually shows that the statement is false.  Prager avoids discussion of why the trendline rises.

PragerU cites a case in Canada in which a vet couldn’t get wheelchair ramp for 5 years and a government employee noted that she had the option of MAID.  Hmmm…  why does PragerU have to go to Canada to find such a story.  Clearly, PragerU could not find a scandalous story in the USA because if it could, it would have used the USA story.   Hmmm… why does PragerU not report that the Canadian prime minister called the situation "absolutely unacceptable" and that the veterans service agent had been suspended and the matter referred to the police (per https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted-death-macaulay-1.6671721).

PragerU asks what MAID tells us about our society’s view of the value of human life.  I would say that it recognizes the value of human will and that we each have our right to view and protect our life as we see fit.  If we are not allowed to end our life under the circumstances of MAID, should we be permitted to take risks to help others if those risks could terminate our lives?   PragerU talks about slippery slopes, but vigorously promotes a slippery slope of government interference in our rights.

Contact your Congressional representatives

 We communicated as follows recently to our Senators, both of whom are Republican:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Trump and Biden agreed that Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness like Biden did in Afghanistan.

Earlier we wrote:

We have your back if you choose to oppose some of President Trump's nominations.  Our primary concern is Tulsi Gabbard.  We don't object to her being in the government, but she is not a good candidate for Director of National Intelligence.

For our Democratic Congresswoman we wrote:

Support Ukraine

We hope that Presidents Biden and Trump agreed that President Biden would increase pressure on Russia so Trump could come in and tell Putin "You'll get even more pressure, if you don't negotiate favorably."  Trump's tough stand against Hamas is working and he should do the same against Russia in Ukraine.  His strong stance in Ukraine will undermine Russian advances in Africa and deter Iran and China.  He does not want to start his second term  showing international weakness.

Declined Claims and Insurance Fraud

I was disappointed by Dana & Parks’ (local KMBZ radio show) one-sided diatribe against health insurers.  They asked to hear from various people, but pointedly left out those who might defend/explain insurance industry practices.  (It is hard to get comments to them, I had to cut this into 5 separate comments).

Clearly it is appropriate to highlight wrongfully-denied claims.  But we have a lot of insurance fraud; our costs reduce if insurers deny fraudulent claims.  The Anthem BCBS plan to limit anesthesiologist payments was the result of overbilling, which Dana & Parks failed to report.  As noted in #2, you should criticize insurers for paying improper claims as well as declining proper claims.  This would be a more unique contribution, as it is an example of the “tragedy of the commons” (I can explain that principle if you are unfamiliar with it).  Here are examples I have experienced:

1. My insurance covered 80% of dental cost.  When I wasn’t billed for my 20%, I contacted the dentist’s office to pay my share.  They told me it wasn’t necessary.  They had raised their prices 25%.  When my insurer paid 80% of their inflated bill, it covered the dentist’s full intended charge.  Thus, the insurer inappropriately paid my share.  I imagine the dentist had good repeat clientele due to their practice although I never went back again.
2. I drove a person home from a car accident.  He assured me he was fine.  I watched him sprightly walk to his house (his entrance was very recessed from the curb).  I later learned he sued for severe neck damage and was told the insurer knew it was a bogus claim, but he was represented by a known shyster lawyer, and it was cheaper for the insurer to pay the claim than to incur legal costs fighting it.  Insurers’ failure to deny such claim fosters fraud should be exposed..
3. My heart doctor was explaining that my heart test was fine, when we were suddenly interrupted so he could speak with his partner.  Suddenly, I needed a heart monitor installed.  I was dubious; in several years since, my heart monitor has detected no abnormalities.  Doctors prescribe unnecessary treatment to protect against our flawed malpractice lawsuits.
4. I locked my key inside my company car.  An attendant at the garage offered to get into my car.  I agreed to save my wife from having to bring my spare key.  When he jimmied into my car, he broke the lock on the passenger door.  I asked our insurance agency where I might get this problem fixed inexpensively.  They told me to send in the bill.  When I responded that I was going to pay for the repair because I had caused the damage, the person repeatedly urged me to “just send the bill to us”.  It concerned me that he was causing premiums to rise.  I did not send the bill.

How Matching Grant Offers Have Gone Awry

I was an early advocate of matching grants.  However, most matching grant programs now are unethical, deceptively telling prospective donors that their donation will have much more impact than is the case.

Non-profits continually send out appeals such as: “Generous donors will match our [Giving Tuesday] donations [5-to-1], up to a total of [$500,000]!  So, each $1 you give now will go [five] times as far!”

However, in most cases, that $500,000 has been fully committed.  The non-profit will get that $500,000 even if no one responds to the solicitation.  If you donate $1, the non-profit gets only $1 more, not $5 more.

Not only have non-profits falsely re-characterized donations as a “matching grant” so they can mislead donors into donating more money, some non-profits have brazenly solicited funds to be pooled into a false matching grant fund.

In an open-ended true matching grant program, if there is 1-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $2 for every $1 you donate.  If there is a 5-to-1 match, the non-profit gets $5 for each $1 you donate.  The higher the multiple, the better for the non-profit.

If a true matching grant program is going to be fully-subscribed, it is better for the non-profit if the match is a lower multiple.  That is, if the full $500,000 is going to be used:

·       With a 1-to-1 match, it will take $500,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with $1,000,000.

·       With a 5-to-1 match, it will take only $100,000 of donations to secure the $500,000 match, so the non-profit will end up with only $600,000.

The 5-to-1 true match is better only if there is no cap or the cap is not reached.

With a false matching program, a higher multiple attracts more donations but the deal for the non-profit is worse.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “1-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $1,000,000. 

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “2-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $750,000.  That is, $250,000 were “matched” 2-to-1, resulting in a $500,000 “match”.

·        If donors contributed $500,000 for a fund to do “10-to-1” matching that is fully subscribed, the charity leverages that $500,000 into $550,000, as $50,000 soaks up the full $500,000 “match”.

The incentive is to create as high a ratio as people are likely to believe, which exposes that the messaging is intentionally misleading.  It would be honest to say that they've received a "challenge grant" hoping that people will complement that donation.  Donors who think their donation is being leveraged by a false match are being deceived.  

If a for-profit organization used such misleading messaging, these non-profit executives would think it is horrible, even if the for-profit company is seeking a cure for cancer!

Why would non-profit executives resort to such unethical approaches?  Probably because their mindset is that they are just trying to help people.  Therefore, anything is justified if it helps them raise more funds so they can do more good.  “Ends justify the means” is a slippery slope.  

You might want to question non-profits which offer such "matching gift" programs.  You might even want to reduce your annual contribution or defer it to encourage them to be honest.

Pennsylvania Flap About Mail-in Envelope Dates Exposes Our Wasteful, Litigious society

The flap over the improperly or undated votes in PA demonstrates our wasteful, litigious society.  The PA election code requires the outside envelope to be signed and dated.  I note that the code section does not indicate whether any date would be invalid.  So, I don’t know the authority behind requiring that the date be within the voting period.  Nonetheless, the rule doesn’t seem unreasonable, but it has been said (presumed or proven?) to skew against Democrats because Democrats have historically voted more by mail.  Particularly because PA pre-prints the year to minimize errors, the percentage of misdated votes is small and unlikely to change an election result.  Some people argue that dating is not necessary to evaluate whether the ballot was submitted in a timely fashion. 

Either position seems acceptable.  Why keep litigating it and other minor issues?

• In 2023, the PA Supreme Court ruled that such votes should not be counted. 
• Then, in November 2023, a Federal judge Court said the PA rule was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
• So, Bucks County reversed its handling of Nov 2023 misdated mail-in ballots. 
• In August, 2024, a Commonwealth Court in PA, ruled 4-1 that the rule violates the PA State Constitution. 
• In September, the PA Supreme Court ruled 4-3  that the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint had not named all 67 counties.  The 3 dissenters wanted the PA Supreme Court to issue a decision on the issue rather than reject the case on a technicality. 
• The same 5 Commonwealth Court judges then ruled 3-2 that a lower court was right to require Philadelphia to count 69 such votes in a September special election, but documented that its decision did not apply to the Presidential election.  The jurisdictional issue was not a problem with that filing. The judge who switched his position from August to September did so, not on the basis of law, but rather because the decision could sow confusion in the Presidential election. 
• On November 1, that PA Supreme Court re-iterated that improperly or undated votes would not count and expressed dissatisfaction with trying to change election rules on the eve of a major election.
• Nonetheless, three counties intentionally and publicly ignored the PA Supreme Court ruling by counting such votes. 
• On November 18^th, the PA Supreme Court again ruled 4-3 that such votes should not be counted, but apparently left open the possibility of further litigation.
• Meanwhile, there have been other contests regarding votes that were invalid for other reasons.  For example, the PA Supreme Court ruled that if people failed to put their mail-in ballot in the second secrecy envelope, they should be allowed to vote provisionally in person.  On November 1, the US Supreme Court agreed.      

Mass Deportation Procedures

The most impactful quote I have ever heard is from Martin Niemoller.  It demonstrates our responsibility as humans and our self-interest in being supportive of victims of unfair treatment:

“First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The 2025 circumstances are quite different; the 2025 targets are here illegally and are not being put into forced labor camps or killed.  A mass deportation process can protect human freedoms and be humane. 

But, despite extensive international and USA law, the risk that such a program crosses acceptable boundaries is significant.  Laws may be complex, vague, re-interpreted, mis-applied or changed and they may be expensive and time-consuming to apply.  Exceptions could be leveraged aggressively or expanded.  For example, ACLU describes dragnet sweeps⁵⁵.  PBS¹⁷ reports that, in immigration hearings, documents do not have to be authenticated and that hearsay is admissible.

Even if program parameters are clear at the top of the chain of command, misbehavior can occur further down the chain.  (Consider the FEMA employee in Florida who instructed employees to not offer services to people with “Trump” signs on their lawn³².  Review my “Secure Communities program” section to evaluate whether that program strayed.)  The risks increase when you have a leader who gives varying messages and likes to troll.  Which message do people further down the chain believe should govern their activity?  Furthermore, immigration judges have widely different rates of conferring asylum⁴⁵.  There are some legitimate reasons why judges’ rates vary, but a 5% to 95% denial rate in the same court indicates that relative standards may vary significantly.

We all have a responsibility to be knowledgeable and vigilant.  I’m sharing my research to make it easier for you to decide what you think we should do.  I have listed 79 sources, so you don’t need to rely on my interpretation.  Whether you agree with my thoughts or not, I encourage you to explain your positions to your government representatives and to hold them accountable. 

My research underscores for me that I am NOT expert in details regarding complex topic, and I have no practical experience.  I continue to cross-examine myself on these issues.  This paper is written with a heavy heart because, even when justified, deportation is detrimental to those being deported and their family, friends and business associates.  Many reasonable people might conclude that Niemoller’s quote requires opposing all deportation (perhaps other than for crimes against other humans).  I haven’t reached that conclusion but am open to listening to anyone who wants to make that argument to me.

In several areas, acceptability depends on sound judgment from the people implementing the program. There is no way we’d all agree on every case.  But, hopefully, we can be comfortable that our government’s actions are reasonable.

Notes:

1.        Throughout this paper, I express my opinions.  However, to make it easier to read I will minimize caveats such as “I believe”.

2.        “Illegal alien” vs. “undocumented people”: Either term is acceptable to me.  By saying someone is an “illegal alien”, we are not challenging their right to exist as a human being.  I’ve generally used the term “undocumented” to address some readers’ sensitivities.

3.        Posting footnotes is a nuisance, especially if you keep adding new sources as you go.  I apologize for information which may be improperly footnoted.  If you let me know, I’ll try to fix it.

Table of Contents

Mass Deportation Procedures. 1

My Current Conclusions. 2

Relevant statistics (legal and illegal immigration) 5

Why immigration is good for the United States. 7

Should the USA bar entry to, and deport, people?. 8

Securing our border 9

Downsides of mass deportation. 9

The “Secure Communities” program.. 12

Why has illegal immigration become such a problem?. 13

United Nations Conventions. 13

United States Immigrant Legislation and Practices. 14

Current Situation. 14

Rights of people in deportation proceedings. 15

Alternative ways of being removed. 17

Self-deportation. 17

Voluntary Departure. 17

Rapid REPAT (for people incarcerated for non-violent crimes) 18

Criminal Apprehension Program.. 18

Re-entry rules. 18

Project 2025⁴⁷ 19

Sanctuary provided by citizens, cities and states. 21

Sources. 21

My Current Conclusions

As noted above, I don’t expect everyone to agree with the following conclusions.  I might change my mind depending on arguments I hear/read.

1.        As discussed below in “Should the USA bar entry to, and deport, people?”, I believe that a country has a right to control its borders and that there are circumstances which justify deportation.

2.        In conjunction with section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)⁵⁷, we should deport undocumented people who have committed “Aggravated Felony” in the USA, whether they qualify as felonies under state law or not.  “Aggravated Felony” includes violent sex crimes; firearms offenses; alien smuggling (unless it was your first alien smuggling crime and you were helping only your husband, wife, child, or parent); fraud, income tax evasion, or money laundering over $10,000; trafficking in firearms, explosive devices or drugs; crimes for which you received a sentence of one or more years.  As of July 2024, 425,431 undocumented people had been convicted of crimes without being detained for deportation proceedings, however traffic violations were the most common crime.⁷⁷  So, the number in this category might be less than 300,000.

3.        We should deport undocumented people who are dangerous: members of violent gangs or people who have made threats or engaged in terrorism, anywhere in the world; violent, mentally disturbed people; possibly other categories.  However, people should not be deported solely for having been a gang member in their homeland if they fled to get away from forced gang membership.  This number is likely smaller than the number in category 2.  Deporting categories 1 and 2 should have little downside.

4.        Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), undocumented people who entered illegally within the past 2 years can be deported with expedited removal (INA, §235(b)(1)) unless they were admitted or paroled into the USA by immigration authorities.¹⁸  I’m guessing this is about 1,000,000 people.  With the reduced rights of expedited removal, the deportation process might be accomplished more quickly and efficiently, however they still have rights (see “Rights of people in deportation proceedings”).  Because they’ve been here less than two years, they are less likely to have a spouse or children here and are less likely to be making a significant contribution to our economy.  But some will have families, etc.  (See “Downsides to Mass Deportation” below.)  In an ideal world, I’d like these people to have more rights.  However, the world is not ideal, and we’ve created a huge problem of undocumented people.  So, I accept expedited removal as per the INA.  If I know someone who falls in this category who I think would be a good citizen of the USA, I would discuss with them the possibility of self-deportation while having someone work inside the USA to obtain a green card for them.  I respect that a lot of citizens will find this unacceptable.

5.        Undocumented people who were paroled can live in the USA temporarily (typically one to two years) while awaiting deportation proceedings.  During that period of time, they can apply for authorization to work.⁵⁹  President Biden has paroled well over 1,000,000 undocumented people, about 40% of whom have come from designated countries (Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine, Venezuela) and 60% having used the CBP One App (which apparently was not what the app was intended to do).²¹  President Trump may want to rescind (some of) these paroles, so that these people could be subject to expedited removal. I think these people should be permitted the hearing they were promised.

6.        Undocumented people who have been here between two and five years are, under INA (§ 240), entitled to:¹⁸

·        the right to counsel

·        appear at a hearing before an immigration judge.

·        present evidence, and

·        appeal an adverse decision.

There may be about 3,000,000 people in this category.  Removing these undocumented people is a lot more work, more expensive and will have a lot more negative impact on the economy.  However, as they came in during the Biden administration, I think President Trump is going to be intent on deporting them.  As long as their above rights are honored, I can tolerate this.

7.        Undocumented people who have been here more than 5 years may total 6 to 7 million people.  They are more likely to have families, a long track record of peaceful residency and meaningful jobs.  Removing them would be expensive and damaging to our country.  I think we should not deport these people unless they qualify under #2 or #3 now, or possibly in the future.

From a political perspective, it seems attractive to President Trump to focus on those who entered during the past 5 years.  That alone is a huge operation, consisting of approxiately 40% (see statistic #2 below) of our 11.7 million²⁶ undocumented immigrants.  Secondly, Trump wants to grow the economy; a more robust deportation program would damage his goals.  Thirdly, Trump touts a more secure border in his administration, which helps justify focusing on the Biden years.  Looking back prior to Trump’s presidency would involve undocumented people who would have been here at least 8 years; deporting peaceful residents who have been here that long seems cruel and self-defeating.  The rules for re-entry after Voluntary Departure vary depending upon whether you’ve been here undocumented more or less than 5 years, so there is a precedent for a 5-year criterion. 

8.        I would not deport anyone who qualifies under DACA (3,600,000 of whom 528,000 are protected⁵ 3,000,000⁷⁷), TPS (860,000⁵) or other visas, except under #2 or #3.

9.        Project 2025 (P2025) is discussed in more detail in a later section.  Here I identify some ancillary issues it suggests might arise.   These make decision-making harder.  More areas worthy of discussion!

a.        Fear of domestic or gang violence would not justify asylum.  This seems reasonable because it is so easy to claim, yet hard to prove, domestic violence and gang violence and because these crimes do not qualify as persecution.

b.       P2025 says Congress should explicitly permit programs akin to the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR)⁵¹ and Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP)⁵² which require those seeking asylum to make their case without an opportunity to have attorneys to represent them.  They have some opportunity to converse with attorneys in advance.  I am concerned that attorneys may coach their clients to make untrue statements to “justify” asylum.  (In 2016, only 3% of detained individuals filed for relief if they lacked an attorney, whereas 32% did so if they had attorney representation.  Those without an attorney were successful 23% of the time, whereas those with attorneys were successful 49% of the time.)⁴³    People seeking asylum should be able to explain their justification in their own words.  However, there should be someone present who is familiar with our laws and assures that the undocumented person is not railroaded.  Media should also be permitted to attend hearings.

c.        It would mandate E-Verify and would encourage ICE to use Blackies Warrants^{53, 54, 55} for worksite enforcement.  E-Verify seems reasonable and perhaps Blackies Warrants.

d.       P2025 would authorize rooting out security risks in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.  That could be reasonable.  What standards would apply?

e.        It would not let undocumented people post bond to be released into the USA.  My opinion on this might vary based on the circumstances.  Allowing people to disappear into the USA has been a big problem.  But lengthy detention awaiting a hearing is also a big problem.  Could ankle monitors help address the issue?

f.          It would remove rules restricting ICE from sensitive areas (such as schools, places of worship and hospitals), trusting them to exhibit good judgment   That seems to be asking for trouble.

g.        It would eliminate the Temporary Protected Status⁵⁰ designation and raise “credible fear” standards to the level required for asylum.  I would retain Temporary Protected Status and would need more experience to determine whether I am comfortable with raising the “credible fear” standards.  If we made a third country other than their homeland available, I’d be more comfortable with raising standards as, if they had a true fear, they could opt for that third country.

h.        P2025 recommends holding jurisdictions accountable if they provide sanctuary.  I agree with that, but if the mass deportation program crosses lines, resistance becomes a civic responsibility.

I am not addressing amnesty herein, hence am not suggesting amnesty for people who have been here 5 years.  If they subsequently qualify under #2 or #3, they would be eligible for deportation.  After we’ve secured our border and established effective ways to police visa violations, I think it does make sense to have an amnesty program.

Relevant statistics (legal and illegal immigration)

Many of these statistics are fiscal year (October 1-September 30).  Be aware that it is very hard to quantify illegal immigration.  We know how many people were apprehended and how many were released into the USA, but we don’t know how many people got in without being apprehended.²⁶  Often, people seem to presume that if the number of apprehended people increases, the number of illegal immigrations goes up correspondingly.  But increased apprehensions might reflect improved security which reduced the number of illegal immigrations.  Also, the number of undocumented people in our country does not unilaterally increase.  The number of undocumented people can decrease due to deportation and other removal; people voluntarily returning to their country, perhaps seasonally; deaths; and people becoming documented.  Source 26 discusses statistical shortcomings specific to this topic.

1.        As of July 2023, we have approximately 11.7 million undocumented people in the USA²⁶.  Between 1990 and 2007 the U.S. unauthorized population tripled from 3.7 million to 12.2 million, then dipped to about 10.3 million people in 2019⁶⁴ , because new entrants were outnumbered by deaths, undocumented people returning to their home country and people becoming documented.  The illegal immigrant population was “largely stable” from 2007 to 2021⁴.  Source 9 indicates that there are an additional 2.3 million who entered illegally between January 2023 through April 2024 and were released by DHS.  Three million undocumented people are Dreamers.⁷⁷

2.        During President Biden’s administration, more than 2.5 million have been released in the USA²⁵ and 1.7 million have evaded authorities²², for a total of 4.2 million or more, which accounts for 36% of the total undocumented immigrants in the USA.  Adding those convicted of crimes would push this percentage closer to 40%.  Source 77 says that since 2021, ~10 million immigrants have come in, more than 2/3 illegally.  That’s a wide gap, 4.2 million to 6.7 million.  Either way, if we removed only the undocumented people who came in during the Biden administration, it would still be a daunting task.

3.        Immigrants comprise 14.3% of the population, ~3.3% are undocumented and 11% are here legally.  So, the undocumented are ~23% of the immigrant population in the USA.  In 2022, 49% of all immigrants in the USA were naturalized citizens.⁴⁰  I infer that 28% were here legally but not citizens.

4.        In FY23, we had a record high of 3.2 million illegal immigrants stopped at point of entry. (Apology for lack of documentation.)

5.                                                                            2016⁵                   2020                    2023

Total Enforcements by year               805,071              730,000              3,070,000

The 2020 and 2023 numbers were estimated from a chart at source 30.  Source 26 helps explain why you have to be careful drawing conclusions from some of this data.

6.        We have about 134 million workers in the USA.²⁹

7.        In 2022, 56% of the undocumented immigrants living in the USA were from Mexico or Central America, 15% were from Asia, 9% from South America; 8% from Europe, Canada and Oceania; 7% from the Caribbean, 3% from Africa and 2% from the Middle East.⁴⁰

8.        About 23% of our immigrants are from Mexico, followed by India (6%) and China (5%).  In 1960, Italy ranked first (13%) with Germany and Canada at 10%.  In terms of ancestry of our residents, Germany ranks first, followed by Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy.²³

9.        In FY2023, the State Department issued 10.4 million temporary visas for tourists, international students, and others, compared to 8.7 million in pre-pandemic 2019.  Part of the increase was because the State Department dispensed with interviews. 74% were for tourists or temporary business visits, 9% were for temporary workers or trainees and their families, and 8% were for students and exchange programs.²³

10.   Of those, 1.3 million were temporary workers and their immediate families, including 311,000 H-2A seasonal agricultural workers; 266,000 H-1B specialty occupation workers; 132,000 H-2B non-agricultural seasonal workers; and 77,000 L-1 intra-company transfers.²³

11.   Those numbers pale compared to the 96.8 million foreign nationals admitted by DHS for reasons other than immigration.²³

12.    “On average, fewer than 115,000 LPRs (legal permanent residents) became citizens each year between FY 1950 and FY 1969, 145,000 in the 1970s, 210,000 in the 1980s, 500,000 in the 1990s, 685,000 during the 2000s, and about 730,000 between 2010 and 2019.”  That rose to 969,000 in FY22.²³

13.   The U.S. constitutes 5% of the world’s population, but almost 20% of global migrants reside in the U.S.²³

14.   Immigrants constitute 13.9% of our population, which is relatively high but less than the peak of 14.8% in 1890.  In 1970, it dropped to 5%, an all-time low.  Including their children would come close to doubling the percentage.²³

15.   Women slightly outnumber men among immigrants.²³

16.   Nearly half (46%) of immigrants speak English less than “very well”.²³

17.   More than 75% of U.S. immigrants are here legally.²³

18.   26% of children have an immigrant parent (legal or illegal).²³

19.   We’ve been issuing between 700,000 and 1,200,000 green cards per year in the past decade, roughly half of whom seem to get them while in the USA due to relatives or employment.  They can also be obtained for humanitarian reasons and by diversity lottery.²³

20.   In FY23, 60,000 refugees were legally settled in the USA, a bit less than half the cap that President Biden and Congress agreed upon.²³

21.   In FY23, 455,000 affirmative asylum requests were submitted (people not in process of being removed) and 466,000 defensive asylum requests (people who had entered the removal process).  Each type had a backlog of about 1,000,000 applications.  (Can’t find this source; but Source 75 says a backlog of 3.7 million as of September 2024.)

22.   A survey of a caravan of Salvadoran migrants found that nearly 52% cited economic opportunity as their motive for leaving the region, 18% cited violence and insecurity, 2% cited family reunification, and 28% cited a combination of those factors.⁶

23.   There are 860,000 people protected under TPS (Temporary Protected Status) and 528,000 people protected under DACA (out of 3.6 million Dreamers^{78, 5}

24.   According to Pew Research⁴⁰, about 4.6% of our 130 million households include an undocumented relative of the householder or spouse.  In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.  Almost 70% of these households include both documented and undocumented residents.  (Pew cites 4.8% rather than 4.6% but then mentions that in 5% of the households, the undocumented person is unrelated.)   Of the 22 million people in households with an undocumented immigrant, 4.4 million are USA-born children below age 18.

25.   In 2022, undocumented immigrant households paid $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes.²  Yet, before they are naturalized, undocumented immigrants are unable to benefit from many of the programs they pay into, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $22.6 billion to Social Security and $5.7 billion to Medicare.³

26.   In 2016, only 3% of detained individuals filed for relief if they lacked an attorney, whereas 32% did so if they had attorney representation.  Those without an attorney were successful 23% of the time, whereas those with attorneys were successful 49% of the time.⁴³

27.   See the “Downsides..” section for distribution of immigrant workers by industry, total numbers and percentages.⁷⁷

28.   Removals of immigrants from the interior (i.e., not border) peaked at 243,000 in 2009 and averaged 126,000 in the 2010s.⁷⁷

29.   Net immigration hit a peak of 3.3 million in 2023 compared to 750,000/year in Trump’s first presidency and an average of 919,000 in the 2010s.⁷⁷

 

Why immigration is good for the United States

Immigrants contribute to our economy (starting businesses, being employees, paying taxes, etc.) and to our culture (diversity in food, music, folklore, etc.).  They teach us about their homelands and help us develop language skills important to diplomacy.

A tremendous value of immigrants is that many come from countries which suppressed their freedoms; these immigrants cherish our political, economic, and religious freedom and understand how fragile those freedoms are.  Most people born here take freedom for granted, increasing the risk of loss of freedom because they don’t understand its vulnerability and aren’t willing to sacrifice meaningfully to protect those freedoms.  We should carefully consider the observations of such immigrants who also expose ways we fail to leverage our cultural and educational advantages.

Source 36 has interesting data regarding freedoms around the world.

Nonetheless, immigration brings risks.  We can’t vet immigrants with 100% certainty.  Furthermore, the immigrants’ young and future children can’t be vetted at all.  Such children often feel stressed trying to assimilate to our society while balancing their parents’ culture and expectations.  Security issues can arise with the second generation (e.g., Boston Marathon).³⁴

We must accept those risks to obtain the benefits of immigration and to retain our national values, as expressed by the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”.

It is worth remembering that we are all descendants of immigrants.  Even native Americans immigrated.

The criteria for permitting people to immigrate is beyond the scope of this paper, but I think those who helped us in foreign wars should get first priority.  We also seem to need guest worker permits.

Should the USA bar entry to, and deport, people?

A sovereign country must be able to control its borders.³⁷   Otherwise, it cannot defend itself.

However, the Statue of Liberty expresses a key historic value of the USA: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”  As noted above, we all descend from immigrants.

You might find it relevant that the U.S. constitutes 5% of the world’s population, but almost 20% of global migrants reside in the U.S.²³

Even many of those who support “open borders” seem likely to accept barring entry for cause, although the list of causes to bar entry would not have unanimous support.  They might support deportation under some circumstances (treason, etc.). 

I’m generally leery of saying “times have changed”.  Claiming that “times have changed” can be an easy way to justify abandoning principles without adequate introspection. 

However, I do believe times have changed significantly since our “manifest destiny” days.  These changes justify tightening our borders.

We should still promote immigration, while exercising our right to limit it and to be selective as to who we admit.  Some advocates for undocumented people, try to paint opponents of illegal immigration as being anti-immigration.  However, I suspect most people who are opposed to illegal immigration do not oppose legal immigration.

Here are ten things that have changed dramatically since our “manifest destiny” days:

1.        We no longer have seemingly unlimited land that we’d like immigrants to settle and farm. 

2.        As technology progresses, jobs generally require more education and skills than in the past.

3.        Government-provided welfare increases the cost of permitting unlimited immigration

4.        Increased population strains other government and commercial services.  (Consider Mayor Adams’ observations about the impact of illegal immigration on New York City.³⁸)

5.        Homelessness is an increasing problem.  People can’t simply cut down abundant trees to build a house.

6.        Drugs are more of a problem.  As one example, more than 25 tons of fentanyl have entered the USA under the Biden administration.²²

7.        Modern transportation, communication, etc. make it much easier to get here than it used to be, resulting in potential floods of immigrants.  International political and economic instability also accelerates the number of people trying to enter the USA.

8.        We no longer have unlimited natural resources to offer.  Cutting down trees is seen as damaging the environment rather than growing the economy.  More people means more fuel consumption and air pollution, etc.

9.        There are security issues, at an individual level and based on actions by countries which intend to harm us by sending in spies, terrorists or other people likely to commit harm.

10.   Modern technology also makes it much easier to do mass killings or other terrorist activity.

The lifeboat ethical problem may apply.  If everyone in a lifeboat tries to stay alive, the risk that they all perish increases.  The USA aspires to continue to stand out as an attractive place to live and to become more attractive.  It aims to be a positive example for other countries.  Allowing immigration is part of the standard we hold high, but if open borders were to undermine our ability to maintain our standards, we might “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. 

The difficult issues are who to deport and how to do so.

Securing our border

Generally, the first step is to secure our border.  If we don’t, those we deport can re-enter and more people can enter illegally. 

Many people die while being smuggled across our porous border.³⁹ Securing our borders should reduce such deaths.

To me, a “wall” is an acceptable approach, even if it might be unappealing.  If I’m going to oppose something, I’ll pick an issue more significant than a wall.

Once we’ve sealed the border, we can consider amnesty programs.  Amnesty programs prior to sealing the border are problematic because they encourage more illegal entry.  Had we sealed our border long ago, we wouldn’t be facing this problem now.

Downsides of mass deportation

While addressing valid concerns, mass deportation creates the problems described below.  Data on undocumented people is, by its nature, difficult to get.  Projections of costs are subjective and may be biased.  I have not thoroughly vetted the studies I quote.  (If you have better estimates, I’m happy to receive them.)  Even if some estimates are exaggerated, there is potential for major downsides to a mass deportation program. 

1.        Mass deportation erodes our national values and will stir strong disagreement among our citizens.

2.        It increases fear and distrust in our society.

3.        If done improperly, it can erode respect for rules and authority.

4.        According to Pew Research⁴⁰, about 4.6% of our 130 million households include an undocumented relative of the householder or spouse.  In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.  Almost 70% of these households include both documented and undocumented residents.  (Pew cites 4.8% rather than 4.6% but then mentions that in 5% of the households, the undocumented person is unrelated.)   Of the 22 million people in households with an undocumented immigrant, 4.4 million are USA-born children below age 18.

5.        Breaking up families can be very difficult for both spouses and for their children.  We should avoid or minimize such trauma where possible.  Even if neither spouse is deported, or even eligible for deportation, such trauma can exist from the fear and distrust mentioned above.

6.        If a parent is removed, their spouse and children may require government services, which can be expensive. Deportation will lead to a decrease of $51,200 in annual household income for these families, or 62.7 percent of their total household income, on average.²

7.        If an employee is removed, the employer can be harmed, which can result in a variety of harmful impacts on society.  For example:

a.        Undocumented people may comprise 4.8% of our employees⁴⁰.  It would be extremely hard to find replacement workers in our current tight economy if many undocumented workers leave and the borders are closed for others.

b.       President Trump wants to stimulate the economy, as he did in his first term.  That will be hard to accomplish if he depletes the pool of workers.

c.        It may be hard to spur legal immigration while mass deportation is in process.

d.       To the degree that they are replaced, their replacements will cost more than what the undocumented people were being paid.

e.        Source 3 has a table from Pew showing the percentage of undocumented workers who toil in each of 15 industries.

                                                               i.        Many of those jobs will be low-paying jobs that will stay vacant, creating shortages.  For example, half of our farm workers are undocumented people²⁸.  If their ranks are depleted, crops might go to waste.

                                                             ii.        An estimated 14% of construction workers are undocumented people.²  Difficulty to find construction workers could impact the cost of homes and economic growth.  The tables below are from source 77.

 

X``x

 

f.          The higher-paid and vacant jobs will both contribute to increased inflation, which, in turn, will drive costs higher.

g.        The economy is not a zero-sum game.²  Source 1 reports on a study of the impact on labor of the 2008-13 “Secure Communities” program that required state and local police to send information to ICE (more info below).  The researchers found that, in addition to reducing the employment of undocumented people, Secure Communities also cost 1 USA-born citizen his/her job for every 11 undocumented people who lost their jobs.  Normally, I’d assume USA-born citizens would replace some undocumented people.  However, perhaps some businesses closed, converted to technology that replaces humans, down-sided (due to lower consumer demand), experienced US-born Hispanics cutting back on working for fear of being erroneously deported, or lost workers because childcare was less available or more expensive.  (Source 3 addresses some of these points.)

h.        Government income tax receipts are lower.³ In 2022 alone, undocumented immigrant households paid $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes.²  Yet, before they are naturalized, undocumented immigrants are unable to benefit from many of the programs they pay into, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $22.6 billion to Social Security and $5.7 billion to Medicare.³

i.          According to Source 2, “When at least 400,000 Mexicans left the United States early in the Great Depression, often due to government coercion, the employment and wages of U.S.-born workers decreased slightly, with workers without a college degree affected most acutely. After the U.S. government ended the Bracero Program in the 1960s, excluding nearly half a million Mexican seasonal farm laborers, agricultural employment and wages did not rise for American workers as intended and farmers suffered long-term declines in income and land value.”

j.          Florida Senate Bill 1718 and 2011 Georgia legislation reportedly cost jobs by restricting undocumented workers.²

8.        Some legal immigrants as well as undocumented people, might quit jobs, work fewer hours or be less productive because of their fear of being apprehended.

9.        Mass deportation is likely to accidentally deport people who should not be deported.

10.   1,000,000 undocumented people are entrepreneurs.²  That’s 9% of the total number of immigrants, which seems questionable.  16% are said to be neighborhood stores; those might have to close if an owner is deported.

11.   Some crime victims and witnesses would be less willing to speak with the police.  Hispanic people also would become less likely to claim government entitlements.

12.   Mass deportation costs a lot of money to organize; find the undocumented people; process them, including any hearings; house them while processing; and remove them.  By comparison, our incarcerated population is only 1.8 million.²⁷  Mass deportation diverts attention and manpower from other resources.  The cost to remove a person is estimated to be $13,000/person.³  Source 2 estimates $315 billion as the cost to remove 13.2 million people, which is nearly $24,000/person, nearly twice as much as source 3 cites, even though source 3 assumes 20% will self-deport.

The “Secure Communities” program

The “Secure Communities” program started at the end of George W. Bush’s second administration and expanded greatly under President Obama (2008-13), without specific legislative authority.  It required state and local authorities to inform ICE about each arrest so that ICE could request that the person be released to ICE for consideration of deportation.  The idea was to deport dangerous criminals instead of putting them in jail.⁹  About 400,000 people were deported under this program.²   However, 17% of those deported had not committed any crime and another 79% had not committed a violent crime.³  This may be an example of how well-intended programs can go awry; hence why we citizens must be vigilant and hold our legislators, regulators and government employees accountable.

President Obama replaced “Secure Communities” with the “Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), in 2015.  In January 2017, President Trump issued executive order 13768 reinstituting Secure Communities.  in January, 2021, President Biden revoked EO13768, seemingly ending these programs.⁸  However, such data sharing continues under the “Criminal Apprehension Program”.¹⁹

 We must minimize such problems.

Why has illegal immigration become such a problem?

People want to come here because the USA has always been a land of freedom and opportunity and because their home countries may not be a great place to live. The U.S. constitutes 5% of the world’s population, but almost 20% of global migrants reside in the U.S.²³

Thanks to the Borlaug revolution in agricultural production, improved sanitary conditions and medical treatment, reduced fertility rates, industrialization, and free trade, the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in the world has dropped from more than 50% 200 years ago to about 10% today ⁶⁷, despite more than a 7-fold increase in population^{69, 70}.  

Despite such incredible progress, 84% still live in poverty (i.e. less than $30/day ⁶⁷).  So, coming to the USA is still extremely attractive.  As explained in “Should the USA bar entry to, and deport, people?”, I don’t think we can support all the people who would like to be in the USA and can arrange to get here.

United Nations Conventions

Following World War II, the UN passed its 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention⁷² (subsequently updated from WWII refugees to apply broadly in 1966⁷¹).  The core principle is non-refoulement (Article 33): a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.  (The principle allows deporting undocumented people to a third country.)  The article excludes refugee status for people who are reasonably considered to be dangerous.

A refugee is someone who has “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”.  (“Well-founded” is a judgment call.  Although 80% of immigration judges deny most of their asylum appeals, judges’ percentages of denials range from 5% to 100%.  A lot of variability is due to the nature of the cases arising in that court (country of origin, etc.), but case variation can’t seem to explain a variation from 5% to 95% between judges in the same court.)

Article 32 (Expulsion) is relevant: Except for compelling reasons of national security, a refugee shall “be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.”  (This clearly requires that refugees be given a hearing before expulsion.  The “be represented” wording suggests a right to counsel or an ombudsman, etc.  Does the competent authority have to be a judge?  What quality and quantity of legal advice should refugees receive?  The answers to these questions can impact cost, time delay and denial rates.  Our system is clearly overwhelmed.  Are undocumented people coached on how to make a plausible case, whether true or not?)

Article 31 says that countries cannot impose penalties on refugees because they entered the country illegally directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.   (Many of our undocumented people did not enter directly from their homeland.)

Countries can choose whether to accede to (i.e., join) the convention and can accede with reservations.  Such reservations cannot disavow article 33 but can disavow article 32.  Furthermore, countries can denounce (remove from) the convention at any time.  So, the USA is not permanently legally bound to these conditions.

I did not see wording that would prohibit a country from barring entry.

The bottom line is that we are not strictly required to follow the convention and that there are areas where interpretation could relieve what might be considered an impossible situation.

United States Immigrant Legislation and Practices

Generally, I’ve felt, perhaps unrealistically, that illegal immigration did not have to be as big a problem as it has become.   We could have:

1.         Secured our border.

2.        Prosecuted visa violations (the major source of undocumented people in the USA.⁶⁴)

3.        And, then, after having implemented steps 1 and 2, we could have had an amnesty program for existing undocumented people.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty) intended to wrap stronger enforcement and amnesty together, but the amnesty was granted (to undocumented people who had entered the USA prior to 1982*) before stronger enforcement occurred.⁶²   Thus, those favoring amnesty did not have to continue to support penalties for employers who knowingly hired individuals unauthorized to work in the USA or other enforcement.  Strong enforcement never came.  Granting amnesty before securing borders and related procedures is a clear recipe for failure because people stream in anticipating future amnesty.  *Farm workers who could validate at least ninety days of employment also qualified for lawful permanent residency. 

Between 1990 and 2007 the U.S. unauthorized population tripled from 3.7 million to 12.2 million, then dipped to about 10.3 million people in 2019⁶⁴ , because new entrants were outnumbered by deaths, undocumented people returning to their home country and people becoming documented.

Under President Biden, the number of undocumented people has risen to at least 11.7 million²⁶   I don’t know how to square that 1.4 million net increase since 2019 with reports that President Biden’s administration released more than 2.5 million undocumented people into the USA²⁵ and another 1.7 million having evaded authorities²², which suggests that 36% of the total undocumented immigrants in the USA entered under Biden’s administration.

Some of Biden’s comments, whether appropriate or not, encouraged people to flock to our border.  For example, the proposed US Citizenship Act of 2021 would have created a road for citizenship for most undocumented residents.  I don’t think it is productive for me to review President Biden’s actions, but if you look at the Project 2025 section, you’ll see some Biden actions that P2025 suggests be reversed.

 

Current Situation

We currently have 11,700,000 undocumented residents²⁶ and a backlog of about 3,700,000 asylum applications.⁷⁴  (Source 23 says the backlog is only 2,000,000)

In FY22, 969,000 legal permanent residents became citizens, compared to annual averages of 500,000 in the 1990s, 685,000 during the 2000s, and 730,000 in the 2010s.²³

In a 2018 survey, 52% of Salvadoran migrants cited economic opportunity as their motive for leaving the region, 18% cited violence and insecurity, 2% cited family reunification, and 28% cited a combination of those factors.⁶⁵

Violence and insecurity are generally related to crime and gangs and may be related to domestic violence.  We may be sympathetic to such circumstances, but they don’t qualify as “persecution”.    It seems clear that most of our undocumented people cannot satisfy the “well founded” standard. 

Although asylum is the only relief I saw in the UN Convention, the US offers lower levels of relief, such as “withholding of removal” and protection under the Convention Against Torture.⁶¹  Human Rights First points out that lesser forms of relief have higher standards of proof (e.g., “more likely than not” compared to “well-founded fear”).⁶¹  In that case, P2025’s suggestion to limit the relief to asylum seems to make sense.

Rights of people in deportation proceedings

The USA can deport people who participate in criminal acts, are a threat to public safety, or violate their visa.¹¹  To be clear, entering the country illegally is a criminal act.  (But simply being an undocumented person is a civil violation, not a crime.  That is, violating visa requirements is not a crime.)

The foreign national may be held in a detention center before trial or deportation.¹¹

Unless “expedited removal” applies (see below), people accused of being undocumented are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 240 and are entitled to: ¹⁸

·        the right to counsel (but according to source 17, this does not apply to deportation hearings because they are civil cases or only misdemeanors.)

·        appear at a hearing before an immigration judge.

·        present evidence, and

·        appeal an adverse decision.

Asylum will be granted if the applicant has “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” unless the applicant has⁶¹:

·        Engaged in the persecution of others or terrorist activity

·        Been convicted of a particularly serious crime and constitute a danger to the USA or, if there are serious reasons to believe they committed, a serious nonpolitical crime outside the USA)

·        Created reasonable grounds to be regarded as a danger to the security of the USA

·        Been “firmly resettled” in another country before arriving in the USA

·        Not filed their application within one year of arrival, absent changed/extraordinary circumstances

·        Previously been deported or did not apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States, are barred from asylum.⁴²

Asylum evidence may simply be applicant testimony, but a stronger case is made if that testimony is buttressed by police, health or other applicant-specific records, documentation of the situation in their homeland, etc.  Most need to be translated. Applicants are screened biometrically against law enforcement databases.  Significant resources are applied to detect fraudulent documents.  A downside for frivolous requests for asylum is that the perpetrator is permanently banned.⁶¹

Despite the previous paragraph from Human Rights Watch, PBS¹⁷says that documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay evidence is admissible.  This could mean that evidence supporting the applicant’s case is sometimes scrutinized more closely than evidence challenging the applicant’s case.  PBS also cites mass hearings as opposed to individual hearings.

However, “expedited removal” (INA, § 235(b)(1)) restricts those rights and applies broadly at point of entry and also to those who have been here less than two years (unless they were admitted or paroled into the USA by immigration authorities).¹⁸

DHS has applied expedited removal at point of entry and for those apprehended within 100 miles of the border within 14 days from entry.  But, prior to 2019, DHS applied expedited removal to other people who have been here less two years only if they arrived by sea.¹⁸  That was simply restraint on the part of DHS.  In 2019, the Trump administration expanded the policy to apply to all those here less than two years, unless admitted or paroled.  A federal district court enjoined that change, but the D. C. Circuit court reversed that decision.  Then, under President Biden that expansion was reversed, citing operational constraints and limited enforcement resources.  While I can appreciate that the Biden administration wanted to be more sensitive to undocumented people, its logic escapes me, as expedited removal requires less resource than the normal removal process.

It seems clear that President Trump will once again expand the use of expedited removal to those who have been here less than two years without having been admitted or paroled into the USA by immigration.

A person can be released from expedited removal, after an administrative hearing, if the alien:¹⁸

·        wants to apply for asylum or has “credible fear” of persecution if returned.  If an asylum officer concludes that the fear seems credible, the undocumented person is placed in formal review.  If the asylum officer concludes that there is a lack of credible fear, the undocumented person can appeal to an immigration judge.  (Hence, false claims of fear of persecution can throw a big monkey wrench into deportation efforts.)  The percentage of asylum requests granted varies greatly from court-to-court and judge-to-judge.⁴⁶

·        claims to be either a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident (LPR), admitted refugee, or asylee.  These claims also are heard by an immigration officer whose negative evaluation can be appealed to a judge.  A person charged with being undocumented can initiate a habeas corpus proceeding for these reasons or to claim that they were not ordered to be removed by expedited removal.

·        Is an unaccompanied minor.

There are 3 forms of relief:

·        With asylum⁴² people can work in the USA, qualify for Social Security and other government programs, travel abroad, and bring in family members into the USA. 

·        Withholding of removal⁴² is temporary protection which can be revoked if conditions improve in a person’s home country and does not preclude deportation to a country other than the person’s homeland.  To maintain this status, a person cannot leave the USA, bring family members into the USA, or become citizens.  Such protection may be granted for a parent yet rejected for the parent’s child.

·        Protection under the United Nations “Convention against Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” ⁴¹ is harder to achieve than “Withholding of Removal” and is somewhat stricter.   Article 3 of the convention says “No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

The expedited removal process can be challenged in court within 60 days of the implementation of the challenged provision, regulation, directive, guideline or procedure.  A person charged with re-entry a second time can challenge only their first deportation.

 

Alternative ways of being removed

Self-deportation

I’ve heard the term “voluntary departure” used in a way that sounds as though the individual chooses to leave the USA to avoid getting caught.  However, “voluntary departure” is a defined term that refers to people leaving the country after having received a notice from the government.

I found much less documentation for self-deportation⁴².  Essentially, the hope is that as the USA has announced a major effort to accomplish mass deportation, undocumented people will voluntarily depart without having been apprehended.  This would be a quick and inexpensive way for undocumented people to be removed.

People might choose to self-deport because they are convinced that they will be caught and deported.  They might not like living under such pressure.  They might give up hope of being able to bring in family members, etc.

 A key possibility is that they hope family members in the USA can arrange for a green card (I-130 petition) for them.  Some may qualify for entry under the CHNV program (Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans)²⁰ or a similar program.  If they are removed or deported, their rights to re-enter are limited.  So self-deportation might be preferable.

If people have hope of being able to immigrate in the future, self-deportation is more attractive.  Perhaps publicizing opportunities for future immigration might help stimulate self-deportation.

But do we want someone who has lived here peacefully for 10 years, is married to a US citizen and has 3 children and a responsible job to feel a need to pre-emptively depart?   Do we want them and their family to live fearful of deportation?

It seems reasonable to have a time limit beyond which only “for cause” deportations will occur. 

Voluntary Departure

In Voluntary Departure¹², instead of being deported to your homeland at USA expense, you voluntarily leave at your own expense.

You are not eligible for Voluntary Departure if DNS charges you with Aggravated Felony (as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) and the immigration judge agrees.(2)

Examples of such “Aggravated Felony” include violent sex crimes; firearms offenses; alien smuggling (unless it was your first alien smuggling crime and you were helping only your husband, wife, child, or parent); fraud, income tax evasion, or money laundering over $10,000; trafficking in firearms, explosive devices or drugs; crimes for which you received a sentence of one or more years.

I heard someone on TV suggest that people would have a hearing before a judge.  However, that is not the case if they are subject to “expedited removal” (see above).

Rapid REPAT (for people incarcerated for non-violent crimes)

People incarcerated in state prisons for non-violent crimes can be granted early release if they agree to be deported.  This program currently is being done in AZ, GA, MD, NH, NY, PR, and WA.  These states have saved $477 million as a result of Rapid REPAT.¹²

President Trump might encourage more states to do this.  I don’t have a problem with this approach.

Criminal Apprehension Program

In this program, ICE asks federal and local governments to agree, prior to releasing them from detention, to detain undocumented people who have been sentenced for aggravated felony.  ICE will take responsibility for those individuals so the deportation process can start.¹⁹

The document describing CAP refers to “noncitizens who the agency has probable cause to believe are amenable for removal”.  That wording surprised me.  I don’t understand how that works.

Some jurisdictions do not cooperate with this program and some others do so minimally.  These jurisdictions provide sanctuary.

Re-entry rules

Most of the information in this section comes from www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Voluntary%20Departure%20-%20English%20%2813%29.pdf

After being Removed or Voluntary Departure, you need “advance consent” (or “extreme hardship waiver” due to burden on U.S. citizen parent, spouse or child) from DHS to re-enter, but there are “bars” (periods of time for which you are barred from re-entry).  You must have a temporary visa, a valid passport, or a green card and a strong statement supporting re-entry.

Bars if you were Removed:

·        Apprehended at entry; first offense: 5 years

·        First removal after living here for a year illegally: 10 years

·        Second, third, etc. removal: 20 years

·        Convicted of an aggravated felony: never

Bars after Voluntary Departure:

·        If you were here illegally more than 180 days, but less than one year: 3 years, unless a judge granted you Voluntary Departure.

·        If you were here a year or more: 10 years

If you leave pre-emptively but the government discovers your prior illegal status when you apply for entry, I think the same bars apply as for Voluntary Departure.

Time that does not count against you:

1.        Under age 18

2.        While reasonable asylum applications are pending (unless were employed without authorization)

3.        Family Unity: time while awaiting for green card after spouse or child secured green card through amnesty or field work.

4.        Entered because of being a battered spouse or child

5.        While lawfully admitted as a non-immigrant if you did not violate the terms

6.        Time pending approval of submitted green card application

7.        While on Voluntary Departure

Under some circumstances, you can lose your opportunity to re-enter if you displayed a lack of good moral character in the past five years.  Examples: having spent six months or more in jail or prison; having been a habitual drunkard; income derived principally from illegal gambling activities; convictions for 2 or more gambling offenses committed; false testimony to get immigration benefits; convicted or admit committing any of the following offenses: crime of moral turpitude (could include theft, larceny, fraud, aggravated assault or other crimes of dishonesty or violence; whether intentional or carelessness; drug offense, except one offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana; 2 or more offenses with aggregate sentences to confinement actually imposed of 5 years or more; drug trafficking; prostitution; commercialized vice; or knowingly helping another alien to enter or to try to enter the U.S. unlawfully.

Forms for applying for re-entry can be found at https://www.uscis.gov/i-212.

Project 2025⁴⁷

Although President Trump has disavowed any knowledge of Project 2025 (“P2025”), some creators of P2025 clearly have his ear.  Thus, I reviewed the 922-page document’s⁴⁷ extensive recommendations for border security, immigration, and deportation and for departments involved in such issues.  Many goals are identified as requiring Congressional action; there seems to be little expansion of executive power relative to these issues.  I’ve summarized my research into the following 16 bullets and have sprinkled in a few page references from P2025; most of this discussion is between pages 130-160.

1.        P2025 recommends massive reorganization and process changes to improve planning and coordination while lowering cost.  It would tighten grant compliance review to assure that grant expectations are met and resurrect the Trump Administration condition that grant awardees share information between federal and local authorities about an individual’s immigration status, thereby preventing law enforcement in “sanctuary cities” from receiving grant awards.

2.        P2025 would increase attention on alien smuggling, trafficking, and cross-border crime.

3.        It would increase funding for detention beds, officers (p. 143) and increase fees, etc.

4.        It would focus immigration on the “best and brightest” (ending the diversity lottery and chain immigration) and stop issuing T and U visas (P2025 believes S visas can handle the needs).

5.        It would support USA citizens’ employment opportunities by capping and phasing out seasonal H-2A (agricultural) and H-2B (non-agricultural) visas* , p. 138); narrow statutory eligibility to work in the USA; strictly enforce rules against importing items made by forced labor; require government contracts to hire USA citizens (70% grading to 95% in 10 years)* and allow businesses to favor USA citizens. (*For these suggestions, the alternative view is documented, making these less hearty suggestions.)

6.        It would build a border wall, increase horseback patrols; reinstate and Title 42 (COVID removal) and expand it to expel undocumented people immediately under conditions such as loss of operational control of the border, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico”.  It would allow DHS (with the President’s approval) to bar entries from particular countries if a flood of migrants is heading to the USA (this is an extension of power; p. 156).

7.        Other countries would be required to permit visa reciprocity and would be sanctioned under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), if they fail to accept the return of any of their nationals who have been ordered removed from the USA.  Asylum Cooperative Agreements⁴⁸ with the Northern Triangle Countries would be reinstated immediately and third country (transit) rules⁴⁹ would be codified.

8.        P2025 would eliminate Notices to Report (NTR), in favor of Notices to Appear (NTA) which initiate a formal court proceeding.  It would follow the Information and Naturalization Act (INA) by allowing expedited removal for undocumented people who have been here two years or less.   (Current practice has been to apply expedited removal only to people apprehended within 100 miles of the border or who arrived by boat.)  It would eliminate the Temporary Protected Status⁵⁰ designation and raise “credible fear” standards to the level required for asylum.  Domestic and gang violence would not justify asylum. P2025 says Congress should explicitly permit programs akin to the Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR)⁵¹ and Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP)⁵² which require those seeking asylum to make their case without seeking attorneys to represent them.

9.        P2025 would reduce the practice of closing cases and instead apply the INA rules.  It would not let undocumented people post bond to be released into the USA.  It would follow the law on work authorizations and revoke improper past authorizations; reduce the validity of employment authorization documents; and end COVID flexibilities, including biometrics reuse.  It would have Congress create specific parole standards and reassert control of employment authorization which would be limited to specific categories of legal immigrants and non-immigrants.  P2025 would restrict prosecutorial discretion; create consistent use of “shall” be detained rather than the current mix of “shall” and “can” ; and require that forms and interviews be complete.  If no court has jurisdiction, it would allow court rulings to be ignored (p. 146). Staff would no longer be distracted with unlawful programs such as DACA and mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians and Venezuelans.

10.   P2025 would authorize rooting out security risks in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program and remove rules restricting ICE from sensitive areas (such as schools, places of worship and hospitals), trusting them to exhibit good judgment (p. 142).  It would encourage ICE to use Blackies Warrants^{53, 54, 55} for worksite enforcement and it would mandate E-Verify.

11.   Undocumented people can be denied green cards if they appear likely to be on the public dole.  P2025 would require that applicants rejected for any benefit or status adjudication leave the USA immediately, at least until USCIS has eliminated case backlogs.  P2025 says 15%–20% of CISOMB’s workload is helping DACA applicants obtain and renew benefits, including work authorization.  P2025 says this is not the role of an ombudsman and that the government should be a neutral adjudicator, not an advocate for undocumented people.

12.   P2025 would halt funding of NGOs to move undocumented people around the USA.  It suggests that Congress end the Flores Settlement Agreement by explicitly setting nationwide terms and standards for family and unaccompanied detention and housing, focused on meeting human needs; allow large-scale use of temporary facilities (for example, tents); and repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), which provides benefits for unaccompanied undocumented children.

13.   It suggests that Congress eliminate the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman,

14.   P2025 says Congress should unequivocally authorize state and local law enforcement to participate in immigration and border security actions in compliance with Arizona v. United States (page 150).

15.   It says Congress should require state and local governments to share information about criminal aliens and comply with immigration detainers; eliminate states’ ability to demand detention rules; and create financial disincentives for jurisdictions to implement official or unofficial sanctuary policies.

16.   P2025 recommends that the incoming administration consider withdrawing every immigration decision rendered during President Biden’s term and promulgating every immigration decision issued during the first Trump Administration.

Sanctuary provided by citizens, cities and states

Generally, I have been opposed to citizens, cities, and states providing sanctuary, but the history of the Nazis is one of many examples that demonstrate that there is a limit after which providing sanctuary is a moral requirement.

Our responsibility is, first of all, to keep the situation from deteriorating into a situation that would justify sanctuary.

However, if it does deteriorate to such a degree, our responsibility is to support sanctuary efforts.

Sources

Mass Deportation papers

1. Mass Detention explained: https://immigrationforum.org/article/mass-deportation-in-the-u-s-explainer/.  This source has a reference to Reno v. Flores which does not confirm what the article says about it.
2. Mass Deportation, devastating costs: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation
3. Brookings Institution Labor Impact of Mass Deportation, September 2024 by Chloe East: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/
4. Mass deportation reduces employment of USA citizens: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/721152
5. See #74, 77

Secure Communities

6. The government’s description of Secure Communities: https://www.ice.gov/secure-communities
7. Secure Communities: https://econofact.org/secure-communities-broad-impacts-of-increased-immigration-enforcement
8. Critique of Secure Communities program: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/secure-communities-fact-sheet
9. Secure Communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Communities
10. Secure Communities, Sanctuary Cities data in President Trump’s first term: https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/489/
11. Secure Communities results 2009 through July 2020: https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/secure/

Deportation processes

12. https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
13. How To Apply For Voluntary Departure: www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Voluntary%20Departure%20-%20English%20%2813%29.pdf
14. Filing a Civil Rights complaint: https://www.dhs.gov/file-a-civil-rights-complaint
15. ICE returns illegal aliens to their home countries by airplane: https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/ice-air-operations
16. Prisoner early release in order to be deported (Rapid Repat program): https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/library/factsheets/pdf/rapidrepat.pdf
17. Forms to apply for re-admission: https://www.uscis.gov/i-212
18. Rights of illegal aliens:  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have
19. Expedited removal: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11357
20. Criminal Apprehension Program: https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/criminal-apprehension-program
21. CHNV program (Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans): https://www.uscis.gov/CHNV
22. CBP One App: https://immigrationforum.org/article/cbp-one-fact-sheet-and-resources-directory/

See 43 Self-Deportation

See 48 Asylum Cooperative Agreements

See 49 Third Country Transit rules: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/17/2020-27856/asylum-eligibility-and-procedural-modifications

See 50 Temporary Protected Status: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20of%20Homeland%20Security,may%20also%20be%20granted%20TPS.

See 51 Prompt Asylum Claim Review: https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/trump-administration-testing-new-program-prompt-asylum-claim-review/

See 52 Humanitarian Asylum Review Process: https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/trump-administration-implementing-the-humanitarian-asylum-review-process-harp-to-expedite-asylum-applications-from-mexican-nationals/

See 53 Blackies Warrants case history:https://clearinghouse.net/case/10136/

See 54 Blackies Warrants argument to use in sanctuary cities: https://cis.org/Cadman/Feds-Should-Use-Blackies-Warrants-Challenge-Sanctuary-Cities

See 55 ACLU re: dragnet raids (Blackies Warrants might be used): https://www.aclusocal.org/en/news/aclu-joins-coalition-calling-ins-end-abusive-immigration-raids

See 56 “Public charge”

See 58 and 59 Parole

See 60 HARP

See 64 Moving Beyond Border Security and Amnesty

Statistics and general info

23. Border protection under Biden: https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ogr_icymi.pdf
24. Immigration statistics: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-2024
25. DHS 2016 Statistics: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhs-releases-end-fiscal-year-2016-statistics#:~:text=Overall%2C%20in%20FY%202016%2C%20the,to%20235%2C413%20in%20FY%202015.
26. Immigration data, 2024: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/
27. Why the number of DHS ”encounters” and estimated “gotaways” has always greatly exceeded undocumented population growth: https://cmsny.org/us-undocumented-population-increased-in-july-2023-warren-090624/#:~:text=The%20total%20undocumented%20population%20increased,%2D2001%20(Figure%202).&text=Figure%203%20shows%20trends%20in,the%20provisional%20estimates%20described%20here.  11.7 million
28. 1.8 million incarcerated people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Approximately%201.8%20million%20people%20are,federal%20prisons%20or%20local%20jails.
29. Immigration and Agriculture - New American Economy Research Fund 50% of farm workers
30. Full-time employees U.S. 2024 | Statista 134 million workers
31. Statistics on illegal immigration and border crossings: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-about-unauthorized-immigration/
32. 2016 increased illegal apprehensions: https://www.ice.gov/remove/removal-statistics/2016#:~:text=Increased%20Illegal%20Migration%20and%20CBP,244%2C510%20intakes%20in%20FY%202016.
33. FEMA worker fired for directing relief response away from homes with pro-Trump signs : NPR
34. 35,000 people with criminal records were apprehended in FY23.²²  43,300 convicted undocumented people were apprehended by the Secure Communities program in 2017.⁹  The Secure Communities program was resurrected on January 25, 2017, so the 43,300 is not a full mature year figure and does not include criminals apprehended through other programs.  Even if the Trump deportation program accelerated 6 years of criminal apprehensions into one year, the number would not exceed 300,000.
35. Boston Marathon bombing - Wikipedia
36. Sovereignty | Definition, Characteristics, Types, History, & Facts | Britannica
37. Constitutional Rights Origins and Travels - Around the World
38. Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities
39. NYC mayor puts $12 billion cost on migrant crisis, blames 'broken' national immigration system - POLITICO
40. How U.S. policies contributed deaths of undocumented immigrants in the Arizona Desert - Futuro Investigates
41. What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. | Pew Research Center
42. United Nations Convention Against Torture: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
43. The difference between asylum and withholding of removal: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-withholding-of-removal#:~:text=Withholding%20of%20removal%20provides%20a,that%20offers%20even%20fewer%20benefits
44. Self-Deportation: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2311/#:~:text=Authors,the%20threat%20of%20direct%20deportation..
45. Green Card for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizen | USCIS
46. Asylum Success Varies Widely Among Immigration Judges
47. Distribution of Asylum seekers by homeland country: Jennifer M. Riedthaler-Williams -- Cleveland
48. Project 2025: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
49. Asylum Cooperative Agreements: https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ACA-Final-1-24-2020.pdf.  These allow the USA to send people to Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras to seek asylum in those countries or to apply for USA asylum from those countries.  We have a similar agreement with Canada.
50. Third Country Transit rules: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/17/2020-27856/asylum-eligibility-and-procedural-modifications
51. Temporary Protected Status: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20of%20Homeland%20Security,may%20also%20be%20granted%20TPS.
52. Prompt Asylum Claim Review: https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/trump-administration-testing-new-program-prompt-asylum-claim-review/
53. Humanitarian Asylum Review Process: https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/trump-administration-implementing-the-humanitarian-asylum-review-process-harp-to-expedite-asylum-applications-from-mexican-nationals/
54. Blackies Warrants case history:https://clearinghouse.net/case/10136/
55. Blackies Warrants argument to use in sanctuary cities: https://cis.org/Cadman/Feds-Should-Use-Blackies-Warrants-Challenge-Sanctuary-Cities
56. ACLU re: dragnet raids (Blackies Warrants might be used): https://www.aclusocal.org/en/news/aclu-joins-coalition-calling-ins-end-abusive-immigration-raids
57. “Public charge” (deny green card applicant who would become a “public charge”): https://keepyourbenefits.org/en/na/resources#:~:text=The%20Public%20Charge%20rule%20focuses,used%20by%20their%20family%20members.
58. Immigration and Naturalization Act: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act
59. Parole: Biden administration has admitted more than 1 million migrants into U.S. under parole policy Congress is considering restricting - CBS News
60. Appendix 2: Humanitarian Parole Information
61. HARP: https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/trump-administration-implementing-the-humanitarian-asylum-review-process-harp-to-expedite-asylum-applications-from-mexican-nationals/#/tab-policy-documents
62. Standards for https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Basics-of-Asylum-Factsheet-formatted.pdf
63. 1986 Immigration reform: https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca#:~:text=U.S.%20law%20required%20qualified%20applicants,and%20the%20Department%20of%20Labor.
64. 1986 Immigration reform: https://www.npr.org/2010/07/04/128303672/a-reagan-legacy-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants
65. Moving Beyond Border Security and Amnesty:  https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/moving-beyond-amnesty-and-border-security-as-the-solutions-for-undocumented-migration/#:~:text=I%20n%201986%2C%20President%20Ronald,in%20controlling%20future%20unlawful%20immigration.
66. Causes of Central American Immigration:https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11151/1

See #77-79

Immigration: See 23, 25, 44-46, 56-57, 61-65, 77-79

Global Population and Poverty

67. How much has global poverty fallen over the past 25 years? | World Economic Forum
68. Extreme poverty: How far have we come, and how far do we still have to go? - Our World in Data
69. Borlaug’s Vision and Impact
70. World Population by Year - Worldometer
71. World Population Clock: 8.2 Billion People (LIVE, 2024) - Worldometer

United Nations Conventions

72. 1966 UN Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees | OHCHR
73. The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR

74.   See 41 United Nations Convention Against Torture

Others

75.   Complexity of Mass Deportation: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/opinion/trump-mass-deportation-immigration.html?searchResultPosition=1

76. Asylum Success Datahttps://trac.syr.edu/reports/703/
77. https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/trump-immigration-policy-job-growth-567fb3cd
78. https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-on-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/
79. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status#Countries%20Currently%20Designated%20for%20TPS