Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare

Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare

Mother and child at the airport.

Getty Images//Keiferpix

I had a nightmare that my mom was being deported. I dreamed of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents coming to our home and taking her away. The current climate has unlocked a childhood fear. My mom did not become a citizen until 1997, and in my early years, I was afraid that I would go to school and never see her again. I was afraid that I would be left behind.

To see immigration through the eyes of the child is to see separation from your parents, your sense of safety and normalcy. My mother had fled from Nicaragua to the United States during the 1980s during civil unrest in Central America, leaving behind my siblings until they could be reunited many years later. Once reunited, there were years to make up for missed birthdays and missed milestones, and at that point, a blended family with new siblings.


Currently, children are being separated from their parents, like Federico Arellano whose wife, Christina Salazar, was deported after missing an immigration hearing due to an emergency C-section of premature twins. Though the family had informed the court of the circumstances when they appeared to immigration to address the matter, the wife was taken away and they were left with the choice of having their U.S. citizen children stay with their father or be deported with their mother. I put myself in their shoes and I cannot imagine missing my child’s first steps, first words—moments that I would never be able to get back.

Many parents are facing similar impossible circumstances. Another U.S. citizen child, Sara, was on her way to receive treatment for a brain tumor in Texas when her entire family was detained and her seizure medication was confiscated. The entire family was deported, despite the fact that the three children were U.S. citizens. There is also the son of Armando Abrego Garcia, a five year old with autism who was in the back seat when his father was handcuffed and detained by ICE. The child was sobbing uncontrollably when his mother arrived on the scene to pick him up and was forced to say goodbye to her partner. The Trump administration has since stated that the detainment and deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador’s mega-prison CECOT were an administrative error. The Trump administration has been sparring with the judicial system over whether the judicial branch has the authority to demand Abrego Garcia’s return. And the question we all are grappling with is: how are people supposed to fight their immigration case from a prison? Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s son anxiously waits for his dad to come home.

An estimated one in four Latino children have a parent that is undocumented. And emerging research shows the long term effects of children and teens being separated from their parents include a higher likelihood of running away and suicidal ideation. In another study, children exhibited higher rates of PTSD and depressive disorders, which can continue into their adulthood and contribute to lower academic achievement, attachment difficulties, and poor mental health. Not to mention the parentified older children who are now left to care for their younger siblings.

Fear is alive and well among immigrant children and parents today. Children fearing the separation and parents wondering what would happen if they were suddenly taken away. And that fear is mobilizing parents to plan for the worst, while hoping for the best. Some parents are making the impossible choice to self deport in hopes that they can work on their immigration status from outside the United States and reunite in 10 years. Imagine missing a decade of your child’s life. Non-profit organizations are helping families put together emergency plans that detail the care of children, such as who can make medical decisions and provide emergency financial support should the primary wage earner be deported.

In the case of domestic violence survivors, the stakes are even higher. If a single mom is deported, her children can end up back in the horrific situation she fled from or be placed in foster care. Immigrant parents are wary of the foster care system, and children also report being mistreated or living in poor conditions while detained and while in foster care under family separation protocols. The Associated Press has reviewed 38 legal claims where children were harmed sexually, physically, or emotionally while in government custody, including two wrongful death claims. One wrongful death claim involved a Guatemalan toddler who died after a three-week stay in an immigration detention center; her mother has filed suit, alleging the government failed to provide adequate medical attention.

Though the issue can feel too overwhelming to do anything about it, there are several ways everyone can make a difference. We can donate to organizations supporting families, including Kids in Need of Defense ( KIND), Immigration Center for Women and Children ( ICWC), among others. Everyday people can challenge myths about undocumented immigrants with facts; for example, undocumented parents in California pay $8.5 billion in taxes yearly. We can urge city councils to limit ICE cooperation (such as no police collaboration with immigration raids). We can support access to driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, and healthcare for undocumented parents. We can advocate for counseling services for mixed status families and be aware of Rapid Response Networks. We can attend community meetings and become informed of deportations in our communities. Knowledge is power and collective power is greater than fear, even when it feels like a living nightmare.


Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.

Read More

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, 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 Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less