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

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

A small flower wall, with information and signs, sits on the left side of the specified “free speech zone,” or the grassy area outside the Broadview ICE Detention Center, where law enforcement has allowed protestors to gather. The biggest sign, surrounded by flowers, says “THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED.”

Credit: Britton Struthers-Lugo, Oct. 30, 2025

Beyond the Protests: How To Support Immigrant Communities Amidst ICE Raids

The ongoing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have created widespread panic and confusion across Chicago. Many of the city’s immigrant communities are hurting, and if you’ve found yourself asking “how can I help?”, you’re far from the only one.

“Every single one [U.S. resident] has constitutional rights regardless of their immigration status. And the community needs to know that. And when we allow those rights to be taken away from some, we risk that they're going to take all those rights from everyone. So we all need to feel compelled and concerned when we see that these rights are being stripped away from, right now, a group of people, because it will be just a matter of time for one of us to be the next target,” said Enrique Espinoza, an immigrant attorney at Chicago Kent College of Law.

Keep ReadingShow less
An abstract grid wall of shipping containers, unevenly arranged with some jutting out, all decorated in the colors and patterns of the USA flag. A prominent percentage sign overlays the grid.

The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, probing executive authority, rising consumer costs, manufacturing strain, and the future of U.S. trade governance.

Getty Images, J Studios

Tariffs on Trial: The Supreme Court’s Hidden Battle for Balance

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court convened what may be one of the most important trade cases of this generation. Justices across the ideological spectrum carefully probed whether a president may deploy sweeping import duties under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The outcome will resonate well beyond tariffs. It strikes at the heart of how America governs its commerce, regulates its markets, and wields power abroad.

President Trump’s argument rests on a dramatic claim: that persisting trade deficits, surging imports, and what he called a national security crisis tied to opioids and global supply chains justify tariffs of 10% to 50% on nearly all goods from most of the world. The statute invoked was intended for unusual and extraordinary threats—often adversarial regimes, economic warfare, or sanctions—not for broad-based economic measures against friend and foe alike. The justices registered deep doubts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less