Immigrant & Refugee Rights

Comments, Key Links and a Cumulative Bibliography In Progress

Introduction: As of a couple of months ago, 4/16/25,I am behind on updatins this bibliography, as I’m mainly just updating the entries and leaving the links there. Eventually I’ll go back and do this. Then, you can see this durable link for a regularly updated bibliography of items I have read or reviewed for inclusion over the years: https://tinyurl.com/ImmigrantandRefugeeRights. Readers are encouraged to receive the weekly news summary of the American Immigration Council. On its home page, just sign up at the Stay Up to Speed. Another key place to check is the NYtimes section on immigration. I also strongly recommend the work of this independent journalist on border issues: https://www.commondreams.org/author/todd-miller

I am new to work on immigrant rights, other than an event in I think 2016 on immigrant rights at our Conference on Social Welfare in Cleveland, after the husband of one of my students was deported. I have recently spoken out on that the abhorrent treatment by some MAGA politicians of Haitian immigrants and refugees in Springfield Ohio, in an op-ed for Real Deal Press. And helped arrange the plenary opening panel moderated by Anne Hill at the 2025 Cuyahoga County Conference on Social Welfare.

6/12/25:

6/12/25: Normally, Borowitz writes for humor, but this time he defends Terry Moran on the grounds what he said about Trump and Miller was fact.Regarding his comment about Walter Cronkite’s February 1968 comment on Vietnam, see this account in Wikipedia.

6/7/25: Marc Cooper reports on protests, including use of violence, against ICE in LA. I do agree with the value of protests, but am concerned that in the heat of the moment there will be too much of a risk that violence will be used—or that the events could be maniplulated by extremists or by provocatuers deployed by police or federal agents—and that this will produce further federal repression. Marc updated his report now that National Guard have been deployed. Recall that in

6/5/24: Undocumented workers, by and large, are not undocumented. In many cases they have a special SS number for those who are not citizens or permanent residents. In many states including Texas they can apply for driver’s licenses. They pay property taxes on homes they own. So their children born in the USA, for whom they themselves have legal resonsibility, are “under the jursidiction” of their state and of the federal government. All persons, per the Constitution, have protection under the law so in that case even directly they are under US and state jurisdiction. So, reall, should we even be calling them “undocumented immigrants”? This is just a point I wanted to make but I really came back just now to link to this WIRED magazine reporting, discussed recently on Democracy Now, about a massive new database being built to link data from disparate sources about immigrants, but it sets the state to do this about all “persons” in the US. This is what Nick Haslam calls mechanistic dehumanization on steroids; it turns us into a number that can be tracked, manipulated, collared in a sense.

6/3/2025: Just attended a monthly meeting of AMIS here in Cleveland. They are well worth supporting: https://amisohio.org/donate/

6/3/2025: People I know from CA and elsewhere are talking about forming Rapid Response Networks to support people at risk of deportation. Here is one toolkit I found: not sure how recent it is. Here is another one from Catholic Charities in NYC. And from a Legal Aid Resource Center. Even the American Bar Association has one.

5/20/25: The Supreme Court upholds Trump’s decision to end Biden administration humanitarian paroles affecting 500,000 people.

5/29/25: This NYTimes account of “welfare checks” by immigration authorities is very worrisome.

5/14/25: Boston Review has an important article on the role of mutual aid in response to the deportation danger and reality.

4/28/25: The suffering in Gaza continues, per this account of continued lack of aid.

4/28/25: Rabbis speak out against Trump immigration policy.

4/25/25: Judge orders Trump not to enforce his EO about denying cash to sanctuary cities.

4/16/25: See this from Portside, reprinted from Thom Hartmann at Common Dreams, about the syncophantic behavior of cabinent members after the meeting of Trump with the dictator of El Salvador about the false and mistaken imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who committed no crime, is now held in El Salvador’s most notorious concentration camp, where as many as 75 men are packed into cells designed for a fraction of that number.” The article summarizes many of the Constitutional issues.

Here is the Wikipedia page on Kilmar, and it explains what the mass media we have watched seems to avoid doing: “The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release, but stopped short of a lower court's order to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return.[15] The administration took this to mean that it has no obligation to arrange for Abrego Garcia's return[16] and can fulfill its obligation to "facilitate" his release by admitting him into the U.S.[16] and providing a plane if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele refuses to do saying he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States". So Trump has a point that he isn’t disregarding the court; the court kinda sorta caved.

4/15/25: Who can keep up with the outrages. Everything, everywhere, all at once is Trump’s strategy, one close observer of current affairs notes. Remember the outrages in Springfield, Ohio, which seems like a millenia ago? If the Biden administration policies are overturned by Trump, the legal status of many of its Haitian residents, along with many from Venezuela and Cuba, will expire. For now, a court has ruled that Trump cannot do that, but on what basis, I’m not sure.

Trump is investigating Governor Murphy of NJ and his attorney general, on grounds the state is not cooperating with his deportation crackdown. The notion that public officials themselves can essentially commit civil disobedience—I do not know enough about what NJ is doing yet to so characterize its acts—is something that some university presidents should consider doing when federal or state directives themselves infringe on freedom of academic inquiry and expression or themselves infringe on constitutional liberties.

One leading activist with a background the “Global Justice Movement (Seattle/WTO/WB), Occupy Wall St., and the rise of Bernie Sanders in 2015-6,” and who said he has “participated in and helped plan quite a few nonviolent direct actions over the years,” has called upon people to “escalate together right now.” Sanders himself was once arrested in a civil rights protest. The activist said that some veterans of the Occupy campaigns and the Sanders presidential campaigns have “called for people to consider nonviolent disobedience in protest of deportations.”

In response to him, I said I have a substack and I’m going to say whatever the hell I feel like saying, and that I agree: nonviolent civil disobedience in defense of immigrants is definitely on the agenda. Here in Cleveland local social workers just had a conference with a really great workshop by leading immigration and refugee activists here in Cleveland. In my view, the place to begin is building face-to-face relationships with immigration and refugee activists locally and seeing where that heads. I have started to do this.

I pointed out that one of my beats is on immigration, and I said that I will refer to his comments—which he must have thought were public but were only sent to friends, in my substack. I also said and have proposed on an activist list service that I think we should do a mass signon in which US Citizens reprint the oath which immigrant take when they become citizens or permanent residents and we the signers pledge to subscribe to the same oath. According to one activist, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has used that tactic of mass agreement to the citizenship oath in the past. That might not seem that radical and some radicals might be unwilling to say that because of various dogmatic views about the nature of social change, and their refusal to commit to a constitutional path to human liberation without our nation-states, or their belief that under facism, the right of self-defense might have to include violence. And that is one reason I do not agree with calling the Trump administration fascist (see my new beat on that). This blithely saying “it depends” as to whether we should oppose all extra-constitutional strategies for social change is something I strongly disagree with. Even the transitions to democracy in South Africa and Chile were done constitutionally, despite decades of repression and apartheir.

In my view, however, taking such a pledge in solidarity with, for instance, all naturalized citizens and those Green Card holders who are planning to qualify for citizenship, would be the revolutionary democratic thing to do. We should uphold the rule of law in the constitution, but also be willing to engage in the time honored practice of nonviolent civil disobedience under certain circumstances. And perhaps we could say that as well in such a sign-on.

3/9/2025: To add): NYTimes on undocumented workers.

2/25/25: So many terrible things have been happening, but finally one good piece of news about a federal judge ruling against terminating refugee support services already underway.

2/11/25: We are stronger than we think! That article comes from Waging Nonviolence. More immediately, see this from NEOFI in Cleveland.

2/2/25: How heartbreaking this last week was. At the Times reported, people are living in fear and think ICE is everywhere. IMC’s news updates links to Bloomberg about Trump seeking to authorize states to deputize local sheriffs and police to participate in roundups. This on top of what I comment on below about the the Laken-Riley act and early 1996 legislation about the role of states. Sheriffs are county officials, and counties are arms of the state. State laws vary in the degree to which localities have home rule. I am not at all clear on this but it is very disturbing and I will be discussing his with my Village Mayor and police chief. It is bad enough to pay federal and state taxes to violate people’s human rights, but I’ll be damned if this happens in my Village. Not to minimize, but I’ve read other accounts that rates of ICE action have not risen, yet, and that many of us, myself included, have been in denial about the deportations of the Biden administration. I have been doing my best to support local immigration rights work and arrange for content on this at a local upcoming conference in my profession. I am so grateful for those friends of mine who have devoted themselves to this issue over the years. Saturday night, I saw the moving film Problemista, which several of my students are watching this term. Then during the night I had a dream that here in the USA we launched a “color revolution” in opposition to the attacks on immigrants and refugees. In the dream, I was convinced at first we would all wear and display on our cars an orange O sticker, with O for opposition, but after awaking, going back and dreaming some more it turned out it could be a more colorful red, white and blue and rainbow revolution, and why not bkack stickers as well, to counterattack the anti-blackness which is so much a part of xenophobia in our country. So any color would do. To find labels which inlcude black, search for “multicolored” as the typical selection of “bright” colors doesn’t contaion black, but usually does dark brown and a range of other colors. By being circular, in the shape of an O, one could slap such stickers one easily to clothes, windows or car without worrying they wasn’t vertical! Those in the know would realize that O for Opposition is the message. Having met Jesse Jackson both in New Orleans in 1984 and in Ann Arbor circa 1993, I have half a mind to share this idea with him. One could just carry labels around with them and pass them out within neighborhoods, apartment/condo complexes, meetings, etc. Who in any workplace or congregation could object to wearing a colored label with no overt political message? Just choose a color with meaning for you. I know this all sounds pretty post-modernist, and is merely an effort to shape awareness, but similarly in the mid-90s in Ann Arbor, Larry Fox and I founded WIMBY (Welcome in My Backyard), instead of picketing the police station demanding they investigate the burning of a cross in the backyward of an interracial couple’s home. Dozens of neighbors put the WIMBY sign in their windows in solidarity and as we understand it the likely suspect was a Klan sympathizer who no longer lived in the area. WIMBY, too, may have relevance in areas like Bedford near Cleveland where anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ harassment has been reported. Weekly Immigration Roundup from the AMC: CE Makes Sweeping Arrests in Chicago, Endangering City’s Livelihood; A Young U.S. Citizen’s Long Legal Road Back Home; That article makes clear the individual/familial reality of the de facto deportation of US citizens, including children, that takes place when an undocumented immigrant or refugee is deported: “The Rhizome Center continues to fight until every co-deported U.S. minor in Mexico is documented. Today, more than 200,000 U.S. minors in Mexico do not have the “proper documentation” to register for school. Upon their move to Mexico, they become the undocumented.” In a similar light, the plight of DACA remains at risk, and this article in the IMC roundup reports another court decision upholding DACA for now, but pointing out that Trump has long opposed DACA. Another article discussed role of the Laken-Riley Act, now law, and its facilitation of the potentially deleterious role of state attorney generals. This article reported that a federal appeals court upheld a temporary block in Iowa after the IMC’s lawsuit against state-level action in Iowa. The the roundup next reported something which is not widely realized: “In 1996, Congress passed a law giving the federal government the power to declare an emergency relating to a “mass influx” of migrants. When this emergency provision is enacted, the government can both disburse funding to states and localities dealing with the “influx” and delegate authority to local law enforcement agents in those areas to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. In other words, local police officers around the country could be enabled under this law to carry out the functions of a federal immigration officer. On January 23, the law was invoked for the first time. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine C. Huffman declared a “mass influx” affecting the entire United States for at least 60 days, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to deputize local law enforcement to conduct immigration enforcement in all 50 states – even Hawaii and Alaska.” So with the 1996 law and the Laken-Riley Act, it will be even more important to contend immigration issues at the state and local levels. Here is the IMC Fact Sheet on the “mass influx” issue. The IMC’s quote of the week: “Across the country right now, immigrant families are living in fear. Thankfully, for now, communities in Iowa don’t have to worry about this cruel law [SF 2340] which would have subjected even some people living lawfully in the U.S. to arrest and deportation.” – Emma Winger, Deputy Legal Director, American Immigration Council. As with my coverage of Middle East Peace with Justice, I may choose in coming weeks to rely on the IMC weekly roundup, which seems to be a reliable way to keep up on issues about which I have not developed any real expertise. One point I do want to make is about Guantanomo, which the IMC round-up did not focus on but the NYTimes covered. Note that in the stats which Trump and the uniform-wearing Trump appointee as Secretary of Homeland Security trumpeted, they claim there are hundres of thousands of “dangerous criminals” who will be deported, but the fine language always ads “traffic” offenses. I’ll be looking for evidence of how many violent stranger crimes and home invasions, as opposed to drug offenses and property crimes, are actually committed by undocumented immigrants each year. I would bet it is in the thousands, not even tens of thousands, and at a much lower per capita rate than US citizens. This is all an outrage, and Lady Liberty must be crying.

1/29/25: Webinar tomorrow 1/30 11:00am-Noon EST from the US Immigration Council. Registration here. Opposition to Trump’s immigration policies grows per Democracy Now.

1/28/2025: I learned today that Trump is already shutting off funding for many of the groups that were assisting refugees and immigrants. It is hard to keep up with developments. Here is one resource: How U.S. Citizens Can Protect the Immigrant Community From the Deportation Force.

1/26/2025: The article by trustworthy progressive journlist David Bacon is very helpful in understanding the complex forces addressing immigration policy and enforcement.

1/21/25 Today 18 states sued to stop Trump’s effort to stop birthright citizenship.

1/20/25: Yesterday I posted a note about Immigrant and Refugee Notes which linked to my Speaking from the Heart: Lessons from Dr. King’s Drum Major Instinct Sermon, which focuses on implications for Springfield and more generally for immigrant and refugee rights.

1/18/25: New song for social justice songlist: Immigrants We Get the Song Done.

1/18/25 WAPO breaks down the different categories of immigrants in the US who may face deportation and shows historical data.

1/14/25: Immigration raid in CA is example of what may be coming. Max Sawicky, retired from Economic Policy Institute, explains in Jacobin the importance of immigration to our economy and society.

1/12/25 The “gravity of this” must be stressed one activist has said. Another activist has said this is a time for “radical solidarity.” I has occured to me that the police powers of the state principle may be operative here, one we used in MI to get labor support for an anti-strikebreaking initiative petition in the early 70s: “The police power of the state is the authority of a state to enact laws to protect the public's health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The concept of police power in the United States has its roots in English and European common law traditions.” Even with federal court decisions saying there is a right to hire strikebreakers, we argued that this prinicple permitted anti-strikebreaking law. I’m not a lawyer, just a social worker and sociologist, but I’m interested in looking into how this could be used to defend solidarity with immigrants in our states. Here is a link to one legal discussion of these police powers of the state.

12/21/24 Thanks to Anne Hill and the folks at NEOFI, a local interfaith immigration rights groups, for making me aware of this from the ACLU, which I signed onto and is now in the bibliography.

12/18/24 The Social Welfare Action Alliance (formerly Bertha Capen Reynolds Society), of which I am a member, has shared this valuable piece from the Intercept, now on my bibliograpy. It has a provocative title, related to an issue I address below.

12/15: 160 people attended a recent Democratic Socialists of America zoom meeting on the threat of mass deportations and defending migrant rights. I am listenigng now. Thanks for www.portside.org, whose five daily emails are indispensable, I learned ot this piece on Common Dreams, which confirms my own feeling that I at least did not and do not have a solid understanding of what a “progressive position” is on immigration. Apparently it was not and is not only me. This is a valuable read: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/what-is-progressive-policy-on-immigration. It requires discussion and action nationally and locally in my view.

Just a quick note: it is important to act in solidarity with and at the behest of organizations made up of undocumented immigrants, dreamers, and those in other nations currently seeking refugee status in the US, as well as those already within our borders seeking refugee status, and those refugees already granted refugee status and living in the US (which includes, for instance, many of those Haitians in Springfield Ohio).

Those of us who are US citizens should seek to understand their concerns, support them, and support their advocate for themselves. Unfortrunately, we also must consult groups representing permanent resident non-citizens (“green card” holders), whose right are also under attack.

The CPUSA’s Immigrant Rights group has also issued a list of a number of tactics and strategies which it feels are required at this time. While the CP is on the far left formally, in practice it tends to reject extemist demands that would just provide ammunition to the far right and typically encourages its members to support Democratic candiates through the political action arms of their unions and professional associations. But note that only one of its proposals relates to legislation: “Create sanctuary state legislation and sstrategize ways to evade Trump’s deportation orders and prohibit 287(g) agreements at the local and state level, which allow local and state police to cooperate with ICE.” With respect to state-based sanctuary legislation, I pose here a unique legal theory which as a labor solidarity activist I researched in the early 70s: the common law doctrine known as the police powers of the state. (1/18/25 update: see my 1/12/25 commentary above.)

It seems to me that we need to place more attention on state and federal legislation, even if it may not seem, at this time, that it has a chance to pass. Take for instance the Border Security Bill that passed the House but not the Senate (due to Trump’s order to kill it.) It no doubt had many objectional positions, but it did pass with bi-partisan support and VP Harris called for its enactment. Take other more advanced comprehensive immigration reform legislation that was stalled in the House and of uncertain status in the Senate. In the new Congress, a progressive position on immigration policy must carve out a distinction between 3 levels of action: (1) Solidarity actions such as the list noted above and others eminating from organizaitons of undocumented immigrants and refugees, (2) advanced legislation, which we should support and reflect the expressed needs of those communities, and (3) compromise legislation of a bi-partisan nature.

Failure to do all three of these things over the next two and four years will leave us in the same position in 2028 then that we were in fall 2024: at the mercy of demogogic far right politicians and unable to win majority support for measures which could be a viable part of the platforms of candidates in 2026 and 2028.

Acting directly in solidarity as outlined above will likely require civil disobedience and other nonviolent protest. These can be a simple as calls from Ohio advocates to show up peacefully and quietly in the galleries at federal immigration court deportation proceedings. I hestitate to be more specific, not having the specific expertise and record of activism in this area. But we need to ready ourselves to support the appropriate forms of protests in the months to come. The last time I protested on this issue was a march from Lakewood to Downtown that was very well attended in 2017. It followed up on a protest at the airport which I did not attend.

But in addition to protest, we must also find a way to work pragmatically for actual change in policy. We have an obligation to seek to directly influence our elected representatives, and officials of the federal and state governments, on behalf of the actual adoption of policy positions, which may be short of those more advanced demands which groups of immigrants and refugees raise, or even those advanced demands raised by groups who advocae on their behalf—such as the ACLU for instance. For instance, take the 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill discussed below, which passed Senate. I have repeatedly sought, from longstanding dedicated immigration rights activists an opinion on whether they supported that bill at the time or would support something similar now. Not once have I been able to get a clear response.

Apparently, the fear is that were these activists to answer and be cited to that effect, it would somehow undermine the more advanced demands they feel must be raised. And I’m not speaking here of those demands arising from the far left, such as “Abolish ICE”, which it should go without saying actually play into the hand of the far right in the country. These activists I have consulted in various quarters are dedicated and outspoken but not loony. On the other hand, it seems as there is a divide between groups of immigrants and those in solidarity with them, on the one hand, and the more mainstream liberal advocacy agenda aimed at passing legislation or influencing policy. Many progressives and people on the left take the view they won’t want to dirty their hands with such matter: “leave that to the liberals” they say. But guess what? Those very liberals will not act at all without pressure. So the progressive position must be to have a multifacted, three-prong aspect to our immigration and refugee rights work.

For instance, the passage by the Senate by 68 Senators in 2013 of the so-called McCain Immigration Bill, written by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, raised hope justice for dreamers and for a path to citizenship for millions more. But it never passed the House, and has never been a priority of any President or Congress since. That is trulyi shameful. President Biden promised swift action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform but never followed up, either in his first two years when the Democrats controlled Congress or since.

Shamefully, Trump and Vance demogogically exploited fear of immigration during their campaign and threaten mass deportations. Just from the standpoint of this activist and academic who has also shamefully never full educated himself on immigration and refugee rights, it seemed to me that rather than lumping this issue into my pending Post-Election Action items, I should address if fully here.