Guest contribution — American Immigration Council — What happens to U.S. citizen children when an undocumented parent must leave?
by Community Contributor • • Comments Off on Guest contribution — American Immigration Council — What happens to U.S. citizen children when an undocumented parent must leave?
Across the country, deportation is often discussed as an absolute end. What seems to be missing in the conversation is that for the deported people and their families, it’s the beginning of a new set of legal obstacles that often require advocates on both sides of the border to resolve. It is also the beginning of a new and often hard life chapter.
Chicago has been bracing for immigration raids since the presidential inauguration, following tips that it would be the first sanctuary city targeted under the Trump administration’s mass deportation initiatives.
Nearly 13 years since the Obama administration first created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, more than 500,000 people who currently benefit from DACA—and their families—remain in a state of cruel uncertainty. The latest in a long-running court battle took place on January 17 in a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW
Last week, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law. Its provisions will impact all migrants, regardless of criminal background.
The law also hands state attorneys general, like Republican Ken Paxton in Texas, veto power over large swaths of immigration policy, potentially crippling much of the decision making made at the federal level.
A federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary block on Iowa’s SF 2340 law. The law gives Iowa state officials the power to arrest, detain, and deport anyone who reentered the country after being deported, including children and those who are now authorized to be in the U.S.
The American Immigration Council knew this was unconstitutional. So, in May 2024, we filed a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the national ACLU. The court agreed, saying SF 2340 is unconstitutional and that it should remain blocked while litigation continues.
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.
This new fact sheet from the Council offers a summary and initial analysis of the impact of the Trump administration’s “mass influx” declaration, based on the statute and associated regulations.
“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.”
