Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare

Opinion

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

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

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.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less