The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reallocated more than $2 billion from existing health initiatives to cover the cost of housing unaccompanied migrant children, Adam Cancryn reports for Politico. The diversion "illustrates the extraordinary financial toll that sheltering more than 20,000 unaccompanied children has taken on the department so far this year."

But here’s the key point: HHS has "been in a situation of needing to very rapidly expand capacity, and emergency capacity is much more expensive," notes Mark Greenberg, a Migration Policy Institute senior fellow who led HHS’ Administration for Children and Families from 2013 to 2015. "You can’t just say there’s going to be a waiting list or we’re going to shut off intake. There’s literally not a choice. ... This program has relied, year after year, on the transfer of funds."

Welcome to Monday’s edition of Noorani’s Notes. If you have a story to share from your own community, please send it to me at [email protected].

TEXAS SHELTERS — Two large emergency intake sites in Dallas and San Antonio, Texas, that are used to house unaccompanied migrant children are set to close by early June, reports Priscilla Alvarez of CNN. The two shelters are among the first to close amid a decline in the number of children in border facilities, with HHS saying it "doesn't anticipate extending either leases and is working to unify minors with their sponsors, such as family or guardians, in the U.S." Alvarez notes that the closures "suggest some level of progress, though the administration is still considering opening up new sites and expanding existing ones."

FINDING FAMILIES — More from CNN's Priscilla Alvarez: Although Title 42 — the pandemic-era policy that allows border officials to immediately expel migrants at the border — remains in place, the Biden administration plans to identify vulnerable migrant families waiting in Mexico and allow them entry to the U.S. "As the United States continues to enforce the CDC Order under its Title 42 public health authority, we are working to streamline a system for identifying and lawfully processing particularly vulnerable individuals who warrant humanitarian exceptions under the order," said Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Sarah Peck.

WHILE IN MEXICO — As U.S. officials refine a process at the border, Mexico continues to struggle to care for migrant families and unaccompanied children, Patrick J. McDonnell reports for the Los Angeles Times. The Mexican government "has failed to develop a strategy to care for the tens of thousands of migrant women and children expelled by U.S. authorities or in transit or stuck somewhere in Mexico," McDonnell writes, instead outsourcing the task "to an over-stretched patchwork of private and religious charity outfits, medical aid organizations and sundry good Samaritans." The government "is leaving these people alone, without help, and is also leaving us alone with this responsibility," said Fray Gabriel Romero, who runs a Catholic shelter in southern Mexico that has aided more than 12,000 migrants so far this year. Government officials say they plan to open 17 new camps in the coming weeks and months to accommodate migrant families and children.

SHEEBA — After her advocacy for women’s rights led to threats from extremists, then-24-year-old Afghan doctor Sheeba Shafaq had no choice but to flee her home and seek asylum in the U.S. Now a newly minted green card holder, Shafiq penned an op-ed for Newsweek illuminating the value and power of refugee admissions. "Saving lives has always been a passion in my life ... I know that increased refugee admissions are also life-saving," she writes. "This is why it is so important that President Biden implement a refugee cap of 125,000 next year—double the current ceiling—to save lives and change even more futures for the better."

HISTORY — Our nation has a long, complicated history with immigration. In this morning’s Washington Post, George Mason University history professor Zachary M. Schrag lays out the "disturbing 19th-century parallel" to today’s nativist arguments against immigration — particularly with racist "replacement theory" rhetoric. Back in the 1800s, Schrag writes, nativists warned that new Americans "would blindly follow religious or political leaders, rather than casting ballots as properly independent thinkers." (Sound familiar?) It’s a flawed argument: If one political party treats immigrants with respect while another scapegoats them, Schrag concludes, "the former has earned their vote. That’s not cheating. It’s democracy." (And don’t forget that without immigration, as Bryan Walsh of Axios reports, the U.S. faces "serious economic, political and even cultural challenges." Or so we’ve heard.)

IN COURT — A group of almost 30 tech companies filed a legal brief Friday in support of an Obama-era rule that gives work authorization to the spouses of immigrants with "high-skilled" work visas, Chris Mills Rodrigo reports in The Hill. The rule, H-4 EAD, "lets nearly 100,000 spouses of H1-B visa holders in the U.S. work" — and is currently being challenged in court by a group of American tech workers. "The pandemic has already disproportionately impacted women and ending this program would only make things worse, leading to disrupted careers and lost wages," wrote Google’s vice president of legal Catherine Lacavera in a blog post Friday. "Furthermore, if the program is lost, the practical effect is that we welcome a person to the U.S. to work but we make it harder for their spouse to work. ... Ending this program would hurt families and undercut the U.S. economy at a critical moment."

Thanks for reading,

Ali