Author: Mary Giovagnoli

Mary Giovagnoli is an immigration attorney and policy expert who has worked for over 25 years in both the federal government and nonprofit advocacy to improve the immigration system. She is a former executive director of the Refugee Council USA. She served as the DHS deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy from 2015 to 2017.

The Supreme Court Is Showing Us Why the ERA Can’t Wait

Listening to two recent Supreme Court arguments on immigration, I heard something more than a debate over statutory language or constitutional text. I heard a stark illustration of how precarious rights can be when they depend on interpretation rather than being firmly embedded in the Constitution.

In one case, justices parsed the meaning of a single word—“arrives”—in ways that risked erasing access to asylum altogether. In the other, they confronted a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment and, in doing so, were forced to reckon with the real lives at stake.

That contrast is the point. When a right lives in statute, it can be narrowed, redefined or even functionally denied through legal gymnastics that separate words from their purpose. But when a right is written into the Constitution, it becomes harder—though not impossible—for courts to ignore its human consequences.

The difference isn’t abstract; it shapes whether people can seek refuge, claim citizenship or be recognized as equal under the law.

Taken together, these cases offer a warning—and a roadmap. If we want rights to endure, they must be grounded where they are hardest to dismantle. The Equal Rights Amendment was meant to do exactly that. And in this moment, as courts and lawmakers test the limits of existing protections, the case for finally enshrining it in the Constitution has never been clearer.

Rep. Maxine Dexter and the Girls of San Benito: Investigating the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Treatment of Pregnant Unaccompanied Minors

U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter—a physician and member of Congress from Oregon—visited a remote immigration detention center in San Benito, Texas. Her goal: to talk to the girls living there. She wanted to assess for herself a place deemed ill-equipped to handle the potential medical complications faced by pregnant minors and young mothers by immigrant rights and healthcare advocates. 

In an interview with Ms., Rep. Dexter raises urgent concerns about secrecy, missing girls, and inadequate medical care for pregnant unaccompanied minors in federal custody.

“The staff clearly were not helping us speak with them. And that gives me extraordinary concerns that there’s something they’re hiding …”

In the end, Dexter and her group visited a ghost town. They did not see a single child on their tour of the shelter, which currently houses two pregnant girls, two young mothers and their babies and three other girls.

“Just a few months ago they had many more girls. I asked where, where have they gone? Have they been returned to other countries? Are they in foster care? Are they transferred? And they said they couldn’t share that information with us. So, you know, it’s clear they’re trying to limit the number of girls in these facilities now. But where the hell are they?”

The Trump Administration Wants the Supreme Court to Permanently Close the Border to Asylum Seekers

On Tuesday, March 24, the government will ask the Supreme Court to declare that asylum law does not apply at the border. The case—Noem v. Al Otro Lado—was brought by asylum seekers to challenge Trump’s turnback policy.

If the Supreme Court succumbs to Trump’s twisted logic, he will likely consider it carte blanche to keep the border closed permanently to asylum seekers and other people in need of protection. In other words, only people who already have permission to enter the United States could ask for protection.

As the Trump administration has shuttered virtually all other avenues to obtain protection in the United States, this effectively would violate non-refoulement and expose people seeking asylum at the southern border to danger and death.

The Noem v. Al Otro Lado case is both an effort to preserve the right to asylum and a step towards holding the administration accountable for ignoring the human cost of its border policies.

The Cost of Treating Immigration as a War

On Jan. 7, 2026, Renee Macklin Good became the latest person to die because of Donald Trump’s brutal immigration agenda.

She is not the first to lose her life at the hands of immigration enforcement agents—362 people have died during encounters with CBP since 2010. Nor will she be the last, unless we take action to dismantle the power and authority given to ICE and CBP over the last year.

When state-sanctioned violent tactics are used alongside recruitment campaigns encouraging new hires to protect the homeland and help decide who will live in this country; questionable training; and administration rhetoric that comes out of the nationalist movements of the 1930s and ’40s; violence against innocent people—regardless of race or nationality—is inevitable.

As Jennifer Mascia wrote for The Trace: “… Where immigration agents have gone, gun violence has usually followed.”

How the Trump Administration Used a National Guard Tragedy to Accelerate Its Anti-Immigrant Agenda

Months before the lives of West Virginia National Guard Specialist Sarah Berkstrom and Afghan asylee Rahmanullah Lakanwal collided, the Trump administration planned to bring immigration to a halt from countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, and other nations that supposedly threaten American values. When Lakanwal was charged with first-degree murder in Berkstrom’s Nov. 26 death, the administration seized on this tragedy to redouble its rhetoric against Afghans and others and to usher in the next round of immigration restrictions.

As Spojmie Nasiri, an Afghan American immigration attorney points out, “They are using the tragedy to enact the agenda that they already had.”

What Feminist Wins Can Teach Us About Immigration

Past feminist policy victories can guide the way toward more humane and effective immigration reform. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 is a prime example—its architects successfully integrated immigration protections for women into a broader effort to combat gender-based violence. By framing immigrant women’s rights as part of protecting all women from abuse, advocates made it harder for opponents to isolate or attack these provisions. That approach, centered on shared values rather than political fault lines, offers a valuable lesson: Immigration reform succeeds when it’s connected to the broader goals of safety, equality and community well-being.

Today, we need a similar framework to move the immigration debate beyond fear and division. A new vision—what I call the RESPECTED framework, for Restoring Economic Opportunity, Protecting Every Community, and Treating Everyone with Dignity—invites us to see immigration policy not as an isolated crisis but as part of building a fairer, safer and more prosperous society.

Legalization, for example, shouldn’t just be about paperwork—it’s about removing barriers that keep women in low-wage, unsafe jobs and making economic opportunity real for everyone.

Ultimately, the RESPECTED approach asks a simple but transformative question: How can immigration policy help us build the future we want together? By embedding immigration reform within shared priorities—economic security, community safety and human dignity—we can replace the politics of exclusion with a politics of belonging.

The struggle is far from over, especially for women fleeing violence and seeking asylum. But if we listen, learn and lead with respect, we can carry forward the feminist lessons that made change possible before—and make them work again today.

Immigration Isn’t a Problem—It’s Part of the Solution

The challenges facing women seeking asylum are just one piece of a much larger immigration crisis decades in the making. Since the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the U.S. system has skewed toward deportation, introduced new barriers to asylum and limited judges’ discretion.

Advocates say the resulting system fuels chaos, disrupts families and touches every aspect of society—from economic opportunity to civic trust.

Cynthia Buiza, former executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, argues that fixing immigration requires a broader vision. “Rather than focus solely on reforming immigration laws, we need to pass laws that incorporate immigration into broader objectives such as improving the economy, promoting opportunities for youth or addressing disparities in the judicial system,” she says.

Programs like Welcoming America show that community-based solutions can help. By fostering inclusion and mutual understanding, local initiatives demonstrate that immigration reform doesn’t have to exist in isolation—it can be part of a larger framework that benefits everyone.

Yearning to Breathe Free [Part 1 of 3]

In the matter of K-E-S-G-, a Salvadoran woman stalked and threatened by gang members was denied asylum by the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals on July 18, even though her persecution stemmed from her gender in a country that treats women as property. Advocates warn that this ruling could make it much harder for women fleeing violence to prove gender-based claims and may embolden immigration judges to discount their stories.

“This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has singled out women seeking asylum, and we know where this path leads,” said Neela Chakravartula of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “More judges denying protection to women who qualify for it. More refugees being deported to danger.”

The decision highlights the ongoing struggle to recognize gender as a protected basis for asylum. Afghan and Salvadoran women, among others, may now face even steeper barriers to protection—a chilling effect that experts say could deter survivors from seeking safety in the U.S.

The Trump Administration Is Paying Children $2,500 to Give Up Their Rights

The Trump administration’s latest immigration scheme offers unaccompanied children $2,500 to “voluntarily” give up their legal rights and return to the very countries they fled. Officials are calling it a resettlement stipend, but in reality, it’s a disingenuous and dangerous form of coercion. Children in federal custody—many without attorneys—are being asked to make life-altering decisions under duress, with money dangled as an incentive to abandon their claims. Far from empowering them with choice, this program undermines the legal protections Congress established to keep children safe.

It’s one more example of the administration’s incremental intimidation of children—this time, with a price tag attached.

Nighttime Deportations: When Government Policy Becomes Child Trauma

The Departments of Homeland Security, as well as Health and Human Services, hit a new low over Labor Day weekend: Government officials ordered the deportation of over 600 Guatemalan children in the middle of the night.

Fortunately, a federal judge quickly acted to block the removals, at least for now—but the events that unfolded between Aug. 29 and Aug. 31 are a sobering indictment of all that is wrong with Trump’s campaign against immigrants. In a single night, the Trump administration may have permanently scarred children who were just beginning to feel like they had found a safe place, far away from the danger and threats they had fled.

Their terror and confusion is captured in the affidavits children and witnesses filed with the court over the next few days. One boy described how shelter staff woke him at 2 in the morning, telling him he would be leaving in a few hours; he had no time to wash his face or brush his teeth but had to gather his things and go. For a minute, he just sat there, staring into space, unable to fathom what going back to Guatemala might mean. Another child became so scared that she vomited. 

Many worried whether their parents or relatives could even answer the phone at such an hour or be ready to receive them. Some asked in trembling voices, “¿Me van a mandar a otro albergue en Guatemala?” “Are they going to send me to another shelter in Guatemala?”