Category: Immigration

‘We Are Motivated, Yet No One Is Investing in Our Community’: AAPI Women and the 2024 Election

Asian American and Pacific Islander women have become a formidable force in influencing electoral outcomes in recent years. Although historically underrepresented in politics, the AAPI community is the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States, actively shaping the electoral landscape through increased voter turnout and civic engagement. These trends highlight the importance of the AAPI vote in November’s election, which can significantly sway political races in battleground states and uplift diverse voices and concerns.

Ms. spoke with Christine Chen, executive director and founder of Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, and Sung Yeon Choimorrow, the executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, to discuss the issues that matter most to AAPI women—like the rising cost of living, access to reproductive healthcare and threats to democracy.

Stories From Appalachia: ‘I Was Born in Mexico, but I’m From McDowell. We Grew Up Here, and We’ll Stay Here.’

An oral history project five years in the making, Beginning Again: Stories of Movement and Migration in Appalachia brings together narratives of refugees, migrants and generations-long residents that explore complex journeys of resettlement.

Meet Cindy Sierra Morales: When she was 6 years old, Sierra Morales’ family migrated from Durango, Mexico, to Los Angeles, fleeing gang violence. After a short stay with family friends, Cindy’s family drove to Marion, N.C., where her aunt, uncle, cousins and older siblings already lived. Her parents held a variety of factory jobs, and Cindy started second grade just a few weeks after arriving. After living in the United States for 15 years, Cindy and her siblings were able to secure legal documentation through DACA.

Keeping Score: State-Level Attacks on IVF and Abortion; Florida Parents Sue DeSantis Admin Over Book Bans; LGBTQ+ Women Face High Rates of Arrest

In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.

This week: the Suoreme Court upholds access to mifepristone; Biden calls for assault weapons ban; state legislators and courts aim to tighten abortion bans and access to IVF; U.N. Women denounced the “gender-critical” movement; LGBTQ women face high rates of arrest; and more.

Biden’s Border Closure Is a Gamble That Won’t Pay Off

At 12 a.m. on June 5, 2024, the southwest border closed to thousands of people desperate to reach the United States. By taking matters into his own hands, President Biden is following the oft-heard mantra of the last decade: Executive action is the last resort when Congress doesn’t take its responsibilities seriously. However, to justify the border suspension, the president had to determine that something about people who didn’t have permission to enter the U.S., as a category of individuals, meant that their admission—even temporarily—would threaten the best interests of this country. 

Until we all stand up for genuine immigration reform that tackles the tough questions of managing migration flows, ensuring sufficient legal immigration pathways, honoring our protection obligations and valuing immigration as a public good, politicians of both parties will take the easy way out; the odds are good that nobody wins.

Why Women Will Be Hardest Hit by President Biden’s Executive Order

and

President Biden signed an executive order on Tuesday that will temporarily close the United States border to all border crossers—including asylum seekers—if the number of border crossings reaches a certain threshold.

Many people are likely to suffer as a result of Biden’s action—especially women from Mexico and Central America desperate for safety because of gender-based violence in their home countries. 

Compassion, Not Rejection, Will Do Something About the Border

For months now, the words “we must do something about the border” have been thrown about in the United States—as though the border were a leaky roof or broken window that could be quickly repaired and made new again. Listen closely, however, and it becomes apparent that many politicians mean something different altogether. To them, “doing something about the border” means preventing people from accessing border crossings and preventing them from obtaining asylum or other legal means of entry.

The impact on those real people easily gets lost in budget talks and political squabbling. Understanding who is coming to the border can help us make better decisions about what actually needs to be done to create a functioning migration system.

Marco Flores Deserves to Stay in the U.S.: A Feminist Argument Against Deportation

Marco Flores and his mother migrated to the U.S. from El Salvador for a better future. When Marco was 9, a neighbor began sexually abusing him, which continued until Marco was 14. Eventually, Marco’s mother told him the neighbor would soon be moving into their home to babysit his 6-year-old nephew. Convinced that this was the only way to protect his nephew from the abuse he had endured, teenage Marco murdered Jaime Galdamez. Marco accepted a plea deal and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Now in his early 30s, Marco has served his time and is set to be released—and immediately deported back to El Salvador. Two lawyers are fighting for him to remain. A feminist understanding of immigration ethics offers a better understanding of the moral challenge in question—underscoring why Marco Flores deserves to remain in the United States.

The White House Cannot Back Away From Asylum Protection

With only a few days remaining before the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to adjourn for the winter break, the White House has signaled that it is willing to trade asylum protections and other immigration concessions to secure its foreign aid package. The reaction to this news has unleashed a torrent of criticism from human rights and immigration groups, but this is a moment that requires outcry from the broader public. 

Time and again, important policies and decisions are derailed by a small group of Republican legislators who exercise far more control over the future of our country than should be tolerated. In this case, the stakes are so high that the Biden administration appears to be willing to agree to Trump-era policies for managing the border in exchange for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and other sensitive foreign policy objectives. 

New DOJ Settlement Aims to Reunite Separated Families

Five years after the Trump administration separated nearly 5,000 children and families in an attempt to deter migration, the Department of Justice has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit, Ms. L v. ICE, brought on behalf of those families by the ACLU. What began as a lawsuit representing one mother and one child quickly grew, as initial discovery in the case revealed that the scope of separations was far greater, and started far earlier, than May and June 2018, when the bulk of the separations took place.

“All of the consequences of such a horrific policy came, in part, because we don’t have an immigration system that actually centers the welfare of the child in decision-making.”

Access to Asylum Can’t be Treated as a Bargaining Chip in the Foreign Aid Debate

The Senate is feverishly debating the president’s $106 billion supplemental budget, which includes requests for additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, measures to counter China’s influence, significant humanitarian assistance funds, and border security. 

Republican negotiators have chosen to use the urgency of the foreign aid requests to squeeze concessions from the administration and Democratic senators around the asylum process itself.