Justice Kagan Notes Trump's Racism

Many posts have discussed immigration and asylum.

Justice Kagan's dissent in Mullin v. Doe (25-1083)

The Haiti plaintiffs have yet another claim that is likely to succeed: that race entered into the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, in violation of equal protection.

 ...

It is more than plausible: Even putting the clear-error standard aside, the Haiti plaintiffs have carried their burden. The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.  (Indeed, one measure of the President’s way of speaking about Haitians is to compare it with the majority’s, which is unfailingly respectful.4) So here are some of those statements. Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].” 2 App. 802; see id., at 644.  And: Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” Id., at 698–699.  And: Haitians in the United States “probably have AIDS.”  Id., at 698. And: Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.”  Id., at 698. And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood” of our country. Id., at 698.  And: “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” Id., at 699. The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not “overtly racial,” ante, at 21, but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black.  (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.)  The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.  No very “sensitive inquiry,” of the kind Arlington Heights compels, is needed to see them for what they are, 429 U. S., at 266; judges, as we often say, are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,” Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 785.  The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.

\

Huge Increase in Migrant Population

Many posts have discussed immigration.

Stef Kight at Axios:

More than 8 million asylum seekers and other migrants will be living inside the U.S in legal limbo by the end of September — a roughly 167% increase in five years, according to internal government projections obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: That's up from about 3 million in 2019 — a sign of how the underfunded and outdated U.S. immigration system can't keep up with the rapidly growing migrant population driven by new border surges.

The backlog has left millions of people living in uncertainty about whether they'll be allowed to stay in the U.S. — or facing deportation — often for years.The data show that while the backlog has exploded as President Biden has struggled to deal with the unprecedented crush of migrants from around the world, millions already were in the U.S. during the Trump administration.

By the numbers: At the end of fiscal 2023 last Sept. 30, more than 6 million people were on what officials call the "non-detained docket."The government projects that will grow to 8 million by Oct. 1, according to Homeland Security documents sent to Congress.

Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees

Many posts have discussed immigration and asylum.

Ghertner, R., S. Macartney, and M. Dost. The Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees at the Federal, State,

and Local Levels from 2005 to 2019. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services. February 2024

Between 1990 and 2022, the United States welcomed over 2.1 million refugees and accepted over 800,000 asylees. While the purpose of granting visas to refugees and asylees is humanitarian, they do impact the United States economically. This analysis estimates the fiscal impact of refugees and asylees on federal, state, and local governments from 2005 to 2019.

Key Points

• The net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over the 15-year period, at $123.8 billion. This means that refugees and asylees contributed more revenue than they cost in expenditures to the government. The net fiscal benefit to the federal government was estimated at $31.5 billion, and the net fiscal benefit to state and local governments was estimated at $92.3 billion.
• Governmental expenditures on refugees and asylees totaled an estimated $457.2 billion over the 15-year period. Expenditures by the federal government represented 72.5 percent of the total, at $331.5 billion. State and local government expenditures were 27.5 percent of the total, at $125.7 billion.
• Refugees and asylees contributed an estimated $581 billion in revenue to federal, state and local governments. They contributed an estimated $363 billion to the federal government through payroll, income, and excise taxes, and $218 billion to state and local governments, through income, sales, and property taxes.
• Including refugees and asylees and their spouses and children under age 18, most of whom are U.S. citizens, expenditures totaled $723.4 billion. Refugees, asylees, and their immediate families contributed an estimated $739.4 billion in revenue to all levels of government.
• When compared with the total U.S. population on a per capita basis, refugees and asylees had a comparable net fiscal impact.