The Trump administration’s “public charge” rule, which the Supreme Court allowed to move forward this week, is premised on the idea that some immigrants are an “economic burden” on society — but the truth is that most immigrants come here to work, Jason L. Riley writes in a column for The Wall Street Journal.

Employment numbers show that the labor participation rate for immigrants in 2018 was slightly higher than that for native-born workers, and the Cato Institute has found that native-born Americans actually make use of entitlement programs at “significantly higher rates” than immigrants. “It’s true that immigrants are more likely to be poor,” Riley writes. “But … it turns out that immigrants aren’t the drain on public services that the administration is making them out to be.”

Welcome to Tuesday’s edition of Noorani’s Notes. Have a story you’d like us to include? Email me at [email protected].

FAITH PERSPECTIVE – Following the Supreme Court’s decision to let the “public charge” rule go into effect, evangelical leaders are voicing their concerns about its implications, reports Samuel Smith for The Christian Post. “One estimate is that [the rule] could lead to as many as 200,000 married couples annually being denied immigrant visas, which is one reason why evangelical institutions such as [National Association of Evangelicals], [the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission],[World Relief] and the [Council for Christian Colleges and Universities] have formally opposed this new rule,” said Matthew Soerens, national coordinator for the Evangelical Immigration Table.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP – The Trump administration’s latest efforts to bar some pregnant women from entering the U.S. on temporary visas are really a step toward rolling back constitutionally guaranteed birthright citizenship, former Reagan White House official and director of the Becoming American Initiative Linda Chavez writes for The xxxxxx. “Not long ago, the argument for restricting immigration was that other countries were ‘not sending us their best,’” Chavez writes. “Now the administration is worried about keeping out wealthy, educated people from afar because they’re terrified that they might have a child here who would be an American citizen.”

“IN THE DARK” – In a piece for CNN, Priscilla Alvarez investigates the makeshift courtrooms set up along the U.S.-Mexico border where migrants are pleading their asylum cases. The “courts” — typically inside trailers or tents — have been set up to hear the cases of migrants forced to stay in Mexico while waiting for their U.S. hearing. “Migrants in the hearing room couldn't see the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney who was in the same room as [the judge] and interpreter. Every so often, the ICE attorney would chime in, but migrants were unable to see or understand him. The interpreter didn't translate communication between the attorney and the judge, leaving those watching and participating via the TV screen in the dark.”

CENSUS – Advocates are finding it challenging to persuade immigrants to fill out the 2020 Census, writes Tara Bahrampour for The Washington Post. While the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the survey, immigrants remain wary of responding: “even though the question won’t be on the form, advocates say the publicity around it, along with what they see as the administration’s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, magnified fears about sharing personal information and set back efforts to get people in immigrant communities — already a hard-to-count group — to fill it out.”
A PUNISHING APPROACH – A decision handed down by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) last week underscores the exceptionally punitive approach the Trump administration has taken to immigration law enforcement, writes Tom Jawetz at the Center for American Progress. Angel Mayen-Vinalay, a Mexican immigrant with a pending U visa who has been in the U.S. for 23 years, “was eligible to receive lawful status—and eventually permanent residence—as a result of his cooperation with law enforcement.” But the BIA decided that Mayen could pursue the visa from abroad, and “rather than facilitate this remedy and bring him into compliance with the law – both as a reward to him for engaging helpfully with law enforcement and as an enticement for other undocumented immigrants to do the same – our immigration enforcement apparatus dealt him the most severe penalty possible: deportation.”

Thanks for reading,

Ali