Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

Opinion

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.


Immigration policies are built on colonialism and white supremacy. The hypocrisy is stark: a nation founded by colonizers who pillaged, kidnapped, and displaced indigenous populations and trafficked enslaved people is aggressively, yet selectively, anti-immigrant. Racism is embedded in U.S. foreign policy, facilitating political and economic exploitation that destabilizes lower-income nations and drives migration. Today’s enforcement practices, which punitively target people of color while facilitating white people’s entry, continue these legacies.

Country of origin has always mattered; immigrant preference categories favor highly skilled applicants, which often benefits people from wealthier and whiter countries. People born outside of North America have shorter wait times for naturalization compared to those born in Mexico. For example, even adult children of U.S. citizens from Mexico can wait 19 to 24 years for visas. Waiting decades when faced with urgent issues of day-to-day survival can be unrealistic.

In the United States, the vast majority of the undocumented population are people of color. This intersection creates a particularly hazardous status. Working without authorization is dangerous. Employers take advantage of people without papers. Access to basic needs and healthcare is tenuous. Exposure to disasters—from climate emergencies to workplace hazards—is heightened.

The structural racism of our immigration system harms undocumented persons and citizens alike. Black and brown citizens are disproportionately targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In industries where Latinx populations are overrepresented, conditions are often unsafe and inhumane. Consider the policies aimed to curtail water breaks, the dangerous working conditions of infrastructure failures, heat exposure, and lack of air-conditioned facilities, and who occupies the riskiest jobs of our concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Young citizens in mixed-legal status families face undue stress.

How can we do better? We must stop separating families, revoking visas, and deporting legal residents. We need to expand and accelerate access for all asylum seekers. We need to support local organizations that serve immigrant communities, especially those targeted by ICE. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. and we need to allow them a timely pathway to citizenship.

And, we can recognize that while our systems are faulty, our language doesn’t have to be. People are not aliens. People are not illegal. These othering and dehumanizing labels enable public complacency when human rights are violated.

Finally, we need to work as a global community to address social, environmental, and political mechanisms, which push and pull international migration. A world where food, water, shelter, and political safety are universally experienced would reduce forced displacement. Migration patterns would adapt.

To be sure, policy that expedites legal immigration can seem counterintuitive for a superpower, however, America does not need an oppositional us vs. them. America’s merit rests on the values it aspires towards: liberty and justice for all. It's time we hold our leaders accountable to align their policies with these values. A nation that violates human rights, disregards due process, and favors white immigrants—and the citizens who allow these inequities—is not free; it is dangerous.

Immigration policy has always been a tool of racial and economic control. When we allow these assaults, we endorse the history and perpetuation of violence, domination, white supremacy, and the harm that an intentionally, exclusionary, and deferral-based system causes. While we debate who deserves to live where, white supremacy and fascism get a free ride.

Megan Thiele Strong is a Sociology professor at San José State University and a Public Voices Fellow at the The OpEd Project and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

Faustina M. DuCros is a Sociology associate professor and scholar of race, migration, and inequality at San José State University and a Public Voices Fellow at the The OpEd Project.

Susana L. Gallardo is a Chicana feminist teacher, scholar, and mom. Officially an assistant professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at San José State University.

Read More

People looking at a TV screen, live broadcasting China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China.

Elderly residents gather at a local civil affairs service center to watch the live broadcast of China's Victory Day military parade from Beijing on September 3, 2025 in Chongqing, China. The parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, featured Chinese President Xi Jinping addressing the nation and reviewing troops and military equipment at Tiananmen Square

Getty Images, Cheng Xin

A New World Order Isn’t Coming, It’s Already Here − and This Is What It Looks Like

On Sept. 3, 2025, China celebrated the 80th anniversary of its victory over Japan by staging a carefully choreographed event in which 26 world leaders were offered a podium view of Beijing’s impressive military might.

The show of strength was deliberate and reignited a debate in Western mediaover whether we are on the cusp of a China-centric “new world order” to replace the U.S.-dominated international “rules-based order.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A globe resting on the very edge of a risen plank.

Foreign policy experts discuss the Israel-Gaza crisis, Iran tensions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, China’s strategy, and the shifting global order.

Getty Images, Daniel Grizelj

What in the World Is Going On?

In this moment, when global politics feel overwhelmed by unprecedented change and intense international upheaval, the Network for Responsible Public Policy convened foreign policy experts to discuss tariffs, conflicts between Israel and Gaza, Israel and Iran, the U.S. and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea’s role in all of this, and more. As program moderator and Axel Springer Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, Gideon Rose put it at the outset, “Everybody's really interested in trying to figure out what is happening, what will happen next, what the consequences will be. The first point to make is that nobody knows anything. We are in uncharted territory in various areas.” Rose was joined by distinguished scholars, F. Gregory Gause III, Minxin Pei, Kathryn Stoner, and Shibley Telhami.

On Iran: Greg Gause discussed the situation in Iran and mentioned that, happily, the worst-case scenario based on the U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities did not happen, which is good for everyone. That worst-case scenario would have been an Iranian attack on Gulf oil facilities to bring in other actors to counter the U.S. and Israeli attacks. His concern with the current situation is that, with the U.S. President insisting that the nuclear facilities were obliterated, U.S. intelligence assessments must now be questioned, as they will necessarily be skewed to conform to the President’s preferred reality. Since it seems unlikely that the facilities were, in fact, destroyed, Gause believes that Iran now has an enormous incentive to race to develop a nuclear weapon. In what would become a main theme of this conversation (long-term stability even in the face of intense short-term upheaval), Gause mentioned that he does not believe that the current situation in Iran will result in a change to the Iranian regime.

Keep ReadingShow less
Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence

Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America

Americans are learning that democracy is a fragile thing. If it is taken for granted, it can wither almost imperceptibly.

Signs of that withering are everywhere. I won’t rehearse them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Constitution and the American flag
"We don't need to tear down the Constitution. We need to breathe new life into it, reclaiming it as a living promise rather than allowing it to become a weapon in partisan warfare," writes Dr. Paul Zeitz.
alancrosthwaite/iStock/Getty Images

The Hidden Hinge of History: A Refreshing Look at the Constitution on Its Day

Constitution Day is September 17. In his Constitution Day Conversation with Fulcrum Contributor Rick LaRue, leading constitutional scholar and advisor Richard Albert places the document in a refreshing as well as reflective light. He teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, is a prolific author, and actively serves the field’s participants around the world, from students to governments. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Rick LaRue: Before tackling some contemporary challenges, a background question: In the main, constitutions shape governance and protect rights. The U.S. Constitution originally focused on the former and has mostly advanced the latter through amendments. How does this compare internationally?

Keep ReadingShow less