Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Maybe I Will ‘Go Back to Where I Came From’

Opinion

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

As part of the Trump Administration's many moves toward tackling the United States’ ‘immigrant crisis,’ the DOJ recently announced a prioritization of denaturalization procedures.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

As part of the Trump Administration's many moves toward tackling the United States’ ‘immigrant crisis,’ the DOJ recently announced a prioritization of denaturalization procedures, a move that some migrant support organizations recognize as setting a dangerous precedent. But that’s not all, the Trump administration has also requested over $175 billion, which will be divided between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), detention centers, courts, among other things.

It seems that even those of us who have gone through the naturalization process are at risk. No one is truly safe. It doesn’t matter if you are doing things “the right way.” They don’t want us here. It was never about legality.


Government agencies are tackling the immigrant issue with an iron fist, though the legality of their methods is questionable, as it’s been reported multiple times that tourists, legal residents, and even citizens have fallen victim to ICE’s warrantless antics. Even just this week, Washington D.C.'s chief of police released an executive order that allows law enforcement officers to report on the immigration status of the people they pull over during traffic stops and even transfer these individuals to ICE custody, encouraging Metro PD officers to act against policies directly stated in the city’s Council Code.

When I moved to the U.S. from Colombia in 2018, I was one of the lucky ones, coming in with a green card from the jump, as my dad had family here and managed to gather up the $10,000 per person it cost to file the paperwork. I figured, having a green card, I wouldn’t really need to stress much; my stuff was in order, a luxury not all immigrants can afford or even have access to.

Then, in 2023, when I met the five-year requirement to submit my citizenship application, I was so excited. I was doing things “the right way,” paying all the fees, taking all the steps. I received that naturalization certificate, and a weight was lifted off my shoulders.

But now, with everything going on, I have to carry a notarized copy of my U.S. passport, just in case an ICE agent sees my brown skin or hears me speaking Spanish and assumes I don’t belong here or decides that I’m a threat to national security.

Right-wing ‘activist’ Laura Loomer recently tweeted, celebrating the opening of the so-called ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’ that there are 65 million alligator meals waiting to be caught. This is odd because there are only 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S. There are, however, over 65 million Hispanic people in the U.S. She claims that's not what she meant, but you do the math. Watching us all be described as “bad guys” is pretty disheartening, wrangling us up like cattle to the slaughterhouse. And maybe some readers will think I’m exaggerating, but that’s what it feels like.

I was once told by an ex, “If you hate it so much, why don’t you just go back to your country?” Back then, I thought the idea that you can’t want better for where you live just because you weren’t born there was hilarious. I figured that once I received my blue passport, people would stop questioning the validity of my opinions, as I’d be able to vote and all. Now, I’m just scared and heartbroken because having an opinion feels like putting a target on your back.

To be fair, I don’t know what to tell you to do. We’ve protested, we’ve voted, we’ve called our representatives. Any stronger response can land you on a terrorist watchlist. I understand appealing to empathy is pointless. Those who have it are worried, and those who don’t simply don’t care.

But immigrants, whether documented or not, are people. My whole life is here. My people, my job, my plans for the future, all here. All in a country that treats me and those like me like a pest. It hurts.

I did everything “the right way,” and I refuse to let myself be caged, so I might have to go before they catch me. How disheartening it is to have to think that way. I love my friends, I love my home. I don’t want to have to start over somewhere else. But I guess that’s where we are at. I grew up idealizing life in the U.S., dreaming about moving here and making a life, a dream I’m lucky enough to have fulfilled, and which feels like it is getting ripped out of my hands by force. So yes, maybe I will go back to where I came from.

Natalia Arcos Cano is an educator and Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice and the Every Page Foundation.

Read More

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less