Working Immigrants

Another chapter in the Abrego Garcia story

Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed on May 22 States v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, on grounds that it was a case of retaliatory prosecution. DHS remains committed to deport him, but the criminal case against him is dead. Here is what brought this case begun in March 2025 to May 2026

On May 21, 2025, in anticipation of his being returned from El Salvador per court order (which he was on about June 6), he was indicted in Tennessee for conspiracy to smuggle persons in the U.S. and conspiracy to smuggle within the U.S. over 1,000 undocumented persons. The evidence against him appears to be that from others who were jailed or imprisoned for smuggling. A timeline of the case from March to June 7, when Garcia appeared in court in Tennessee, is here.

DHS had reopened a closed investigation into a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop. The court treated that reopening as the starting point of the vindictive taint: the government had previously closed the case after removing him, saying its goals were accomplished. After his successful lawsuit did it revive the matter.

The government was explicit about the connection. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly linked the renewed investigation to a Maryland judge’s questioning of Abrego’s deportation.

Aakash Singh, a senior official reporting up the DOJ chain, then closely supervised the path to indictment. He pressed for charging information, asked about possible charges, requested drafts, monitored timing, and told the team to keep matters close until they got “clearance.”

The government used the criminal case to bring Abrego back to the United States—the very thing courts had already ordered it to facilitate. The judge concluded that, but for Abrego’s successful lawsuit to be returned, the government would not have brought the prosecution

How Trump has squeezed the H-1B program

The Trump administration on May 22 threw a wrench into the gears for employment-based green cards by making it more burdensome for H-1B visa holders to apply for a green card. That’s the latest step in Trump’s long campaign to limit the H-1B program or holders of that visa.

First Trump administration – key changes, which were reversed watered down or not otherwise implemented:

Higher minimum wages. The Labor Department would have reset required H-1B wage levels much higher, so employers could not hire foreign professionals at wages below new government benchmarks. In practice, many H-1B workers would become too expensive to sponsor, especially in lower-paid regions or occupations.
Narrower “specialty occupation” rules. DHS would have required a tighter match between the job and a specific degree field. A general degree, or a job open to several related degrees, might not qualify. This would make H-1B approvals harder for flexible or hybrid professional jobs.
Limits on early-career professionals By favoring higher wage levels, the rules would disadvantage new graduates and junior workers, who are usually paid Level 1 or Level 2 wages. The likely result: fewer H-1Bs for international students just leaving U.S. colleges and entering entry-level professional jobs.
Replacing the lottery with wage-based selection Instead of randomly selecting H-1B registrations when applications exceeded the cap, USCIS would rank or prioritize workers by offered wage level. Higher-paid applicants would move ahead. Lower-paid applicants would remain technically eligible but would have much lower chances.

Second Trump adminstration

$100,000 H-1B charge. The administration imposed a $100,000 payment for many new H-1B petitions. Law suits have kept the policy implementation unsettled. An exemption for doctors has been requested but not formally resolved.
Replacing the lottery. Trump again has introduced a weighted system to replace a lottery, to be effective in FY 2027. This effectively removes the program for lesser paid early career professional.
Higher prevailing-wage levels. Again, re-implementation of an attempted first administration policy, with a Labor Dept rule issued in March, 2026.
Return to country of origin for a green card. Holders of an H-1B visa must return to their country of origin to apply from there. This rule was issued on May 22. This rule affects many more than H-1B holders. Many H-1B holders have planned to and succeeded in transitioning from H-1B to green card. In past years, about half of the 140,000 employment-based green card awards have gone to H-1B holders and their families.

Hair raising press release about green card applicants now in the U.S.

On May 22, the administration issued a policy memo which was phrased in a way to say that, excepting extraordinary circumstances, persons residing in the U.S. and seeking a green card have to return to their country of origin and apply there. About half of all green cards are issued to persons residing in the U.S. at the time of the application or while the application is being reviewed.

Hours after the policy was issued, USCIS issued a confusing statement that appeared to qualify the draconian force of the memo. Boundless, the immigration assistance firm, analyzed the actual wording of formal policy as it stands regarding “adjustment of status” of persons in the U.S. Boundless says, as of early May 23, that the actual effect seems not so draconian, but rather an artless statement on a standing policy that conversion of a temporary visa to a green card is at the discretion of the USCIS.

Let’s look at what is at stake if people are in fact retuired to return to their country of origin.

The wait time for a green card is very roughly six to 18 months. Further, the applicant risks not being able to return to the U.S. during the application process and if the application is denied perhaps forever.

Typical instances of persons in the U.S. today who seek a green card.

Spouses, parents, and minor children of U.S. citizens. Spouses or children of green-card holders, adult children of U.S. citizens, or siblings of U.S. citizens.

Students, especially F-1 students, who later qualify through employment or family.

Example: a graduate student who marries a U.S. citizen, or a student who later obtains employer sponsorship.

H-1B and other temporary workers. In all they account for the majority of employment based green card awards in a year (capped at 140,000).

Refugees and asylees. This is a catastrophic problem for these persons.

Crime victims, trafficking victims, and abuse survivors.

Diversity visa lottery winners already in the U.S.

Unauthorized persons.

What happened in Chicago

The Illinois Accountability Commission (IAC) was established by Governor Pritzker in October 2025, in response to the federal immigration enforcement surge in Chicago. The Commission issued report on April 30, 2026. Here are highlights, followed by a summary of the “Broadview 6” case which ended with charges withdrawn and the judge severely criticizing the prosecutor.

Some milestones in ICE engagement in Chicago

September 8, 2025: ICE launched Operation Midway Blitz, claiming it targeted “the worst of the worst” — individuals with criminal records.

ICE detained persons in the Broadview Processing Center in Broadview, Illinois. Detainees reported 80 people sharing one toilet, sleeping on concrete floors, no hygiene products, extreme cold, lights on 24 hours, food withheld as a threat, and pressure to sign voluntary deportation forms. People were transferred to out-of-state facilities with no notice to families or lawyers.

September 10, 2025: CBP Commander Gregory Bovino arrived in Chicago to oversee operations. Hundreds of ICE and CBP agents were deployed plus a counterterrorism tactical unit.

September 12, 2025: ICE agents shot and killed Silverio Villegas González during a traffic stop in Franklin Park. A Mexican national, he had lived in the U.S. since 2007and had just dropped his two young sons at school and daycare.

October 22–23, 2025: A two-day military-style occupation of Little Village (“La Villita”), the heart of Chicago’s Mexican American community and its second-highest retail district. CBP Commander Gregory Bovino led dozens of masked, armed agents. Tear gas, pepper balls, and flashbangs deployed against non-violent crowds; bystanders tackled; businesses locked their doors.

October 24, 2025: Stephen Miller told Fox News: “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties… no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you.”

October 28–31, 2025: Gregory Bovino’s deposition in a court case. Judge Sara Ellis later found his testimony “not credible,” saying he was “evasive” and had “lied multiple times.”

December 23, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federalization of National Guard troops to protect federal personnel in Illinois was unlawful.

Late 2025 – early 2026: Aggressive ICE presence in Chicago ends.

Some findings:

ICE acknowledged to Congress that 81% of the persons arrested had no convictions and only 40% had a final order of removal.

There were 314 separate uses of physical violence by federal actors between September 2025 and January 2026, and at least 63 deployments of chemical weapons. Two people were shot — one killed. Multiple chokeholds were used. High-speed vehicle pursuits in residential neighborhoods occurred regularly.

Out of hundreds of criminal arrests made during Operation Midway Blitz, only one resulted in a conviction.

DHS issued false press releases about both shootings and numerous other incidents. Body camera footage consistently contradicted official accounts

The Broadview Six

On September 26, 2025, protesters confronted federal agents outside ICE’s Broadview. A grand jury indicted six defendants on a count of felony conspiracy for their involvement in the protest. The case was before Judge April Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a former prosecutor in the office which had brought the case. Federal prosecutors dropped the felony conspiracy charge. The remaining defendants faced a single misdemeanor count of forcibly impeding a federal agent.

Defense attorneys pressed for access to the grand jury transcripts. Judge Perry agreed to review them herself. Prosecutors wound up redacting portions of the transcripts they provided to Perry. She demanded unredacted copies — but moments into the April 29 hearing, prosecutors instead announced they were dropping the conspiracy charge altogether.

On May 21, 2026, Perry outlined misconduct by prosecutors. They communicated with grand jurors outside the jury room, excused dissenting jurors, and redacted misconduct acts from transcripts. U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped all remaining charges with prejudice, meaning they can never be refiled. Perry said: “I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. [Attorneys].” She floated the idea of sanctions against the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecutorial misconduct and ethical violations.

Global low birthrates: the ultimate victory of liberal democracy?

Mexico’s and Tunisia’s birth rates are below those of the United States, which has been below replacement rate for decades. What is going on? Is the evidence suggesting that liberal democratic ideals of how one lives one’s life have spread throughout the world?

The Financial Times has looked at the sharp decline in birth rates in most countries. It finds a common thread in how people especially women anticipate how their adult lives will evolve. Parenthood has lost much of its old social force. Today, adulthood is more often defined by education, career, autonomy, consumption, and self-development. Young people, especially women, may want children in theory but delay them while trying to secure “personhood” — identity, status, financial independence, and control over life choices.

Childlessness is no longer stigmatizing. Traditional ordinary family life feels less attainable or less attractive. Community structures that once made pairing, marriage, and childrearing socially expected have weakened. The result: not just postponed parenthood, but a growing acceptance of childlessness.

The article also points to the influence of social media. “ In country after country the birth rate plunged after the introduction of smartphones, no matter what the previous trend was. The younger the age group, the more pronounced the downturn — a mirror image of smartphone usage patterns. Melissa Kearney, professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, says it is “quite plausible that the modern digital media environment has had profound effects on society that have led to a decline in romantic coupling”.

The FT touches on but does not pursue in the factor of declining roles of traditional social associated life, such as religion, and the rise of new associated life that is linked to self-advancement – higher education and urban work. These lines of analysis are found in a research article which the FT draws on. The article says that “the decline in fertility likely reflects a complex mix of changing norms around work, parenting, gender roles, and leisure consistent with our cohort-based conceptual framework.”

Here is what liberal democracy means to the individual, framed in an American context: People strive to enlarge their minds, express their own convictions, and resist passive conformity. Society becomes more inclusive and tolerant, as consumer society opens up visions of equality of conditions, it creates more room for more persons to express themselves more fully.

Impact of deportations on American workers

Has deportation of unauthorized persons made a positive impact on legal worker hiring and wages? Two studies conclude that the impact on native American workers is mixed, and sometimes adverse. There is no evidence that native workers are getting a lot more jobs and a lot higher pay.

A February paper used a model which assumed that half of unauthorized workers would leave the workforce. It concluded overall that mass deportation gives native workers a small short-run wage bump, but lowers average native real wages in the long run.

In the short run, the capital stock is fixed. With fewer workers using the same capital, the model estimates very small short-term gains. But it also predicts that more labor-saving capital will be invested. That would reduce wages in a small way. Again,, this is the results of a model, not actual experience.

But native wages rise where (1) unauthorized workers are heavily concentrated and (2) where natives can substitute into those jobs. In some states, native farming/forestry wages rise much more: California 7.17%, South Carolina 6.69%, and Oregon 6.55%. the model used an estimate that 35% of farm workers are unauthorized.

The paper: Cravino, Javier, Andrei A. Levchenko, Francesc Ortega, and Nitya Pandalai-Nayar. “The Economic Impact of Mass Deportations.” NBER Working Paper No. 34790, National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2026.

A May paper looked at actual labor market behavior. In areas with large increases in ICE arrests, unauthorized employment fell, but U.S.-born workers did not step into those jobs. The researchers looked at the complementarity of work in construction – that is, the effect of total employment say in residential construction when one labor component (common laborers, roofers, etc.) that are heaving – foreign-born fall short. The researcher estimated that native construction workers with high school or less experienced a 3% decline in affected areas. The Washington Post summarized this paper as for every six unauthorized male workers displaced, one native worker with a high school degree or less also lost a job. They estimated job losses for native workers in farming, construction, and manufacturing.

The paper: Elizabeth Cox and Chloe N. East, “Labor Market Impacts of ICE Activity in Trump 2.0,” NBER Working Paper No. 35129, May 2026.

Pro-deportation sentiment and “sovereignty”

Why does mass deportation remain popular? Here are some polling results and a speculation of what the Trump administration may be politically astute to push the myth of non-citizens voting. Psychologically, many older Americans likely think that foreign-born persons are effectively “voting”, at least figuratively in how we live.

Recent polls (April and May) show continued support for Trump’s deportation campaign, which the White House says is targeted at all unauthorized persons. An April Pew poll showed that those who say that deportation has gone too far edged about 50% — yet that confirms that even after Minneapolis the deportation effort gets support. In fact, the Pew poll shows that the share of Republicans who say that Trump has do too little rose from 16% in October 2026 to 28% in April 2026.

The majority of white respondents are supportive of Trump’s policy. Black (69%), Hispanic (65%) and Asian (58%) adults are more likely than White adults (45%) to say that deportation has gone to far.

The voting fraud issue

52% of Republicans say they are concerned that some ineligible people will be allowed to vote in November (link unavailable).

It is useful to see how the myth of non-citizens voting (and unauthorized persons in particular) has been concocted by the administration and MAGA on the foundation of a real, persistent and persuasive concern that immigration overall waters down the sovereignty of American citizens, if sovereignty is taken as a psychological state that can be seized by the visible presence of foreign-born. A hallmark event of sovereignty is voting. If you don’t have foreign-born peers your imagination can run wild about voting abuse.

In a 2022 survey, 43% of all Americans aged 18-29 report a friendship network with some racial or ethnic diversity, but that percentage drops among older Americans to 37% of Americans aged 30-49, 32% of Americans aged 50-64, and 24% of Americans aged 65 or older. This means that relatively few mature white Americans have no way through social networks to discern how foreign-born persons behave. I expect mature white Americans outside traditional immigrant-rich cities grew up with essentially zero peer contact with foreign-born persons.

Thus, psychologically, many older Americans think that foreign-born persons are effectively “voting”, at least figuratively in how we live.

Apellate court bars one element in strategy to kill asylum program

The appellate court of DC has barred the Trump administration from a strategy to effectively wipe out the asylum program for many new applicants. In a nutshell: executive branch must use the removal and asylum procedures Congress enacted; it cannot replace them by presidential proclamation and agency guidance.

In Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of DHS, the D.C. Circuit ruled on April 24 that the government’s power to suspend entry under certain statutory provisions does not include a power to create new removal procedures for people already inside the United States.

President Trump’s Proclamation 10888, issued on January 20, 2025, described the southern-border situation as an “invasion” and sought to suspend entry for people crossing the southern border outside a “designated port of entry” and also for certain people entering at ports without sufficient documents. DHS guidance created a new procedure called “Direct Repatriation.” The court ruled this illegal. The court emphasized the language in immigration law saying that any person who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States may apply for asylum “irrespective” of status and “whether or not” they arrived at a designated port.

Other initiatives to cut the asylum program:

work authorization A February 2026 proposed rule would change employment authorization for people with pending asylum applications by extending the waiting period to apply for a work permit to 365 days. there is a multiyear backlog in immigration court asylum hearings.

More intensive screening, vetting, and prioritization of asylum-related applications. The February proposal also says USCIS could prioritize asylum adjudication when derogatory information appears during review of a work-authorization application.

Replacement of judges. More than 100 immigration judges have been terminated or pressured to resign from the approximately 750 serving judges. In several high-profile cases, judges were fired immediately after ruling against the administration, including two judges who dismissed deportation cases involving pro-Palestinian student activists. The administration has appointed 143 new judges to replace those removed, including many former immigration prosecutors from the Department of Homeland Security and military attorneys. During training sessions for new judges in October 2025, top immigration court leaders instructed recruits that asylum “should be granted only in rare circumstances”. Former immigration judge Jeremiah Johnson characterized the changes as “a dismantling of the court system.”

Assimilation of Muslims

David Bier of the Cato Institute writes that Muslim immigrants (4M, 60% of whom are first generation immigrants) assimilate more than is suggested by standard polling. Nearly one in four Americans raised Muslim are no longer Muslim. Their personal additudes often are closer to broader U.S. public opinion. On issues such as homosexuality, religious pluralism, interfaith marriage, scriptural literalism, and the role of religion in law, Muslims here are markedly more liberal than Muslims in most majority-Muslim countries. They become more liberal over time. American Muslims show strong rejection of terrorism and extremist movements, often at levels equal to or stronger than the general public. In sum, Muslim immigrants do assimilate. (Also go here).

Note: Among the 250,000 persons of Somali descent, about half live in Minnesota.

More on the contribution of immigrants to innovation

Here is a study which estimates that that immigrants are responsible for 32% of aggregate U.S. innovation, with more than half of that effect coming from spillovers to U.S.-born collaborators.

Stanford Business School researchers, using patent records, identified likely immigrants and patenting from 1990 to 2016. They found that immigrants made up about 16% of U.S.-based inventors but produced 23% of patents, 24% of citation-adjusted patents, and 25% patent economic value.

Why the contribution is so large

This can be explained not be brilliance but by demographics. Immigrant inventors are especially productive in the middle of their careers, when inventive output typically peaks. The share of foreign born residents with post graduate degrees is about the same as U.S. citizens (about 15%) but as I have noted before they tend to arrive in a concentration of prime working age (25- 45).

They also appear more likely to work in fast-moving technology sectors and in major innovation hubs. Immigrant inventors are more connected to global knowledge flows. They rely more on foreign technologies, collaborate more often with foreign inventors, and are cited more often abroad.

The authors claim is that immigrants raise the productivity of collaborators. Using premature deaths of inventors as a natural experiment, the authors find that when an immigrant inventor dies, the decline in co-inventors’ productivity is larger than when a U.S.-born inventor dies.

Source: The Contribution of High-Skilled Immigrants to Innovation in the United States