October 2025 - Working Immigrants

Palantir’s immigration work

The New York Times published on October 30 an interview by Ross Douthat with Shyam Sankar, Palantir’s chief technology officer. The immigration segment centers on Palantir’s work with ICE. Sankar says that ICE enforcement, paired with oversight, strengthens democracy rather than undermines it. Douthat: “From the point of view of someone who is a skeptic of Palantir, you are putting a lot of power into the hands of people that some don’t trust.”

Palantir began working with ICE in 2011 to integrate data across DHS, not to collect new information. The software allows agents to see connections among existing records on border encounters and benefits applications. He defends this as improving efficiency, not expanding surveillance. Sankar: “Why are we using the human to search 20 different systems? That’s clearly a problem that technology can do.” Douthat responds: “Does that include a person’s past address?”

Sankar says that Palantir partners only with democratic allies and avoids projects without privacy safeguards, such as the U.K.’s proposed digital ID. He argues that in the U.S., enforcement policies reflect democratic will and Palantir’s job is to ensure those policies are carried out lawfully and transparently. Sankar: “What ICE is doing was voted on at the ballot box. That seems like a functioning democracy….the lack of enforcement breeds nihilism, and that’s not tenable.” Douthat: “So Palantir is more comfortable with mass deportations in a world where Donald Trump campaigned on them and won?”

Sankar’s family fled violence in Nigeria. He says that immigration strengthens America when it is legal and includes assimilation. Sankar: “We came here legally. We believe in America… but legal immigration. There are rules to follow.” Douthat: “Do you see any tension between your own personal narrative as an immigrant and the fact that Palantir is working to effectuate mass deportations?”

The drug cartel bust that wasn’t

There is little system-wide analysis of who ICE is detaining except for a flock of articles mid summer (one of them noted at the end.) Here is the outcome of an investigation into a big deal cartel bust that happened in late August. The reality of the bust came out when formal charges were made against those arrested.

As of today, late October, a slim majority of Americans appear to still believe that illegal immigration = a major crime problem.

A Boston Globe Spotlight investigation revealed that the DEA’s August raids in Franklin, New Hampshire, promoted by the Trump administration as a major strike against Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, mostly swept up addicts, small-time dealers, and homeless people. “These are high-level arrests, not low-level retail distribution. They are members of the Sinaloa cartel,” said Jarod Forget, special agent in charge of the New England Division. Fox News reported the entire 23 state operation against the Siniloa cartel led to 613 arrests nationwide.

Federal agents claimed to have arrested 171 cartel members in New England. But many were charged with minor offenses like shoplifting or drug possession. In 8,800 population Franklin, what the administration billed as a cartel bust was actually an enforcement operation resulting in 27 arrests, targeting fentanyl and meth distribution, and the clearing of a homeless encampment in Franklin. Franklin’s police chief said he recognized 85% of the people from his patrol days.

From The Marshall Project (8/15/25)

“People with no criminal convictions at all make up two-thirds of the more than 120,000 people deported between January and May. For another 8%, the only offense on their record was illegal entry to the U.S. Only about 12% were convicted of a crime that was either violent or potentially violent. The numbers contradict officials’ continued claims that immigration enforcement is focusing on the “worst of the worst” criminal offenders. The numbers are estimates from a Marshall Project analysis of Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, provided to the Deportation Data Project in response to a FOIA request.”

How deportations happen — the legal issues

Most deportations from the U.S. happen in one of the following three ways.

Formal removal proceedings (immigration court)

In FY 2024, about 325,000 persons received removal orders by an immigration court.

Persons who are brought into this process typically entered the U.S. illegally and have been in the U.S. for over two year, overstayed their visa, are subject to removal due to a criminal conviction, or are denied asylum. Typically the person has resided in the U.S. for years.

DHA services the person a Notice to Appear before an immigration court, listing immigration law violations. An immigration judge within the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration hears the case. The person can contest removability and can bring a lawyer. Between the date of issuance of the Notice to Appear and a decision by the court can be over a year.

Around 35–45% of these cases brought to a court result in no removal order. The most common reasons for non-removal are asylum status or a related protection; the judge is persuaded by long residence or other personal factors; a family petitions; or DHS decides in the end not to deport. A person can appeal a court ordered deportation to the Board of Immigration Appeals. A review and decision by this court can take over a year.

A person given a court removal ordered is barred from legally entering the U.S. for ten years.

Expedited removal

In FY 2024, roughly 300,000 persons were removed by expedited removal.

DHS deports a person without going to an immigration court generally if the person illegally entered the U.S. (entered “without inspection”) and has been in the U.S. for less than two years. The two-year threshold is firm, written into law. A person detained for expedited removal as a right to a “credible fear” hearing by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer. Removal can take days or weeks. A person subjected to expedited removal may not legally enter the U.S. for five years. As visa overstays legally entered the country, they are not subject to expedited removal.

Legal entry, overstay and self-deportation

There are no government estimates of persons who self-deport. However, let’s look at persons who enter legally for an expressly limited time, overstay, and then leave on their own volution without a DHS encounter.

If a person subject to a visa overstays their visa by under six months, there is no formal bar to gain another visa to enter. But an overstay of over six months imposes a bar of at least three years. If the overstay is for, say two years, the bar raised to ten years.

If a person entered without being legally required to have visa, and beyond the maximum stay of 90 days, say for under 180 days, they are not barred from re-entry. But if they stay for more than 180 days beyond the 90 days they are barred for three years.

DACA status: A Russian doll of legal reasoning

The legal status of DACA can be compared to a Russian matryoshka. A federal judge declared it illegal 2021; it still operates; and when the Supreme Court will receive it for review is uncertaion.

Deferred Action for Children Arrival was created on June 15, 2012 not by Executive Order of President Obama bur rather by a Department of Homeland Security memorandum, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” issued by: Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security.

On July 16, 2021, in State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al, The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division (Judge Andrew S. Hanen) ruled that the DACA program was illegal because admininistrative memoranda from DHS were not intended for such a broad scope, and because the program violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

In response, the Biden administration undertook a cure. It e-established DACA in federal regulation (8 C.F.R. §§ 236.21 – 236.25); kept the same eligibility criteria as the 2012 memo; clarified that DACA does not confer lawful status, but provides deferred action and work authorization, and created a clearer administrative record to defend the policy in court.

But in September 2023 Judge Hanen again ruled that the program was defective. Among his objections was that DACA exceeds the powers Congress granted to DHS under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Congress never authorized DHS to grant “deferred action” and work authorization to such a broad class of undocumented immigrants. The government had “creates a program that Congress has repeatedly declined to enact.”

But Hanen allowed the program to continue for persons already enrolled – about 540,000. Had the Administration been permitted to continue enrollment and to broaden eligibility, over one million would be enrolled as of the fall of 2025.

On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Fifth Circuit on January 17, 2025 found that the DACA regulation is unlawful but limited the scope of its ruling to Texas and maintained a stay to allow current DACA recipients to continue renewing their benefits while the litigation continues. The Appeals court expressed caution noting that the welfare of many persions was at stake,

The case is not yet ripe for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The program has been operating for over a dozen years, efficiently, without scandal, and with broad public support. I suspect The SC doesn’t want to touch this box of explosives.

Most Americans don’t think that ICE is acting execessively in enforcement

Do people think that ICE has gone too far?

A NY Times/Siena poll conducted ln late September asked people if they felt that ICE had gone too far in enforcing immigration laws. The respondents were roughly evenly split overall. The poll website headlines, “Majority Support Deportation of Illegal Immigrants, But Describe the Process as Unfair.” Positions on immigration in general have hardened in the past six months, with more persons citing “strongly” approve or disapprove now compared to April.

As for going too far, let’s look at some segments. The cross tabs I downloaded appear in some in cells to be paradoxical, and I will stick with a half dozen which has plausible responses, focusing on those who say ICE has not gone too far (usually by mid 50s vs mid 40s). those approving include persons over 64, White, Black, non-white college, white college and Trump non white. Hispanics strongly disapprove. I am not confident about the reliability of these results. It’s prudent at this point (late October) to surmise that a large segment of Americans, perhaps half, do not consider ICE as over-reaching. For Trump to pull back may require a big news event similar in impact to civil rights activists in the early 1960s being set upon by police dogs.

How to characterize recent ICE activity

On October 14, Politico quoted John Sandweg, a former acting ICE director:

‘I don’t think we’ve ever seen a nationwide immigration enforcement effort like this. During the Obama administration, we did a large number of nationwide operations, but they’re very targeted. They’re the kind of work where you’re going after specific individuals, people that you knew had a criminal history. They were carefully selected. There was a lot of research and investigation done before you went out to make the actual arrest. These are much more akin to area sweeps, where they’re going out and just stopping people in the streets, or working in conjunction with other law enforcement as they execute traffic stops, or hitting a large number of apartments in a building where you suspect people are undocumented. We’ve never seen anything like this. I mean, the deployment of FBI agents and other law enforcement agents to supplement DHS efforts, the pulling of these border patrol agents into these urban cities. All of this is unprecedented.

This administration has repurposed the way they’ve operationalized ICE — to go out and get as many people as possible, and that’s why we’re seeing these raids on the car washes and on the Home Depot parking lots. They know they can make a large number of arrests there, and they don’t seem to care whether or not those people pose a threat to public safety. They just say, “If you’re undocumented, you’re a fair target.”

foreign personal caregivers: Japan vs U.S.

Since 2000, both Japan and the United States have experienced rapid expansion of their personal and elder care workforces. The demographic pressures that drive this demand are more severe in Japan, where by 2030 an estimated 30% of the population will be 65 or older, compared with about 21% in the United States. How to they compare in staffing for personal care, which is overwhelmingly for elder care?

Japan’s long-term care workforce has roughly quadrupled, rising from about 550,000 workers in 2000 to 2.1 million in 2024. The United States saw its direct care workforce more than double—from roughly 2 to 2.5 million in 2000 to 5.4 million in 2024. That is, 3% of the Japanese workforce in 2024, compared with 3.2% in the U.S. – basically equal in total workforce dependence.

What about family care, the subject in Yasujirō Ozu films such as An Autumn Afternoon (1962) and Tokyo Story (1953)? It is possible that in Japan family members today take on more of the burden of personal caregiving in Japan than in the U.S. The demographics show that a “family burden ratio” — the ratio of persons 45 years old (middle age, with the potential burden of elderly parents) to persons 75 years old is much lower than in the U.S. – i.e relatively fewer 45 year olds compared 75 year olds. This ratio will worsen in the future in Japan but not appreciatively in the U.S.

But Japan’s share of foreign-born workers in the care sector remains modest—practically zero in 2000, just 0.2% in 2010, around 1.5% in 2020, and about 4% in 2024. Japan relies much less on foreign workers overall (3% of its entire workforce, vs. 19% in the U.S.) and it shows in the tiny numbers of foreign-born personal aides. Japan introduced over the past 10 years some policies to attract foreign works, such as the 2019 “Specified Skilled Worker” program designed to attract overseas caregivers.

Japan depends now mainly on Vietnam, Indonesia and Philippines for these workers. Automation (robots) and domestic recruitment will have to be heroic to be the solution without a major increase in foreign worker involvement.

The U.S. care sector has become increasingly immigrant-dependent. Some estimates say that foreign-born workers represented about 10–13% of the direct care workforce in 2000, rising to close to 30 percent by 2024. In some U.S. states, such as New York and Florida, immigrants now make up over half of all home health aides. The foreign-born share is at about 40% for home health aides.

Does ICE enforcement cause a major reduction in personal care workers? Estimates of the share of personal care workers who are unauthorized tend to be low – less than 10%. One research team estimated in early 2025 that persons on Medicaid needing personal care will be most adversely. affected.

September Harvard Poll, immigration responses

The September 2025 Harris Poll and Harris X for the Center for American Political Studies reports that 56% are in favor of deporting all unauthorized persons; 55% in favor of using the military to help on that.

Importance of Immigration as an Issue:
- 24% of voters consider immigration one of the most important issues facing the country today.
- Among political parties:
  - Democrats: 14%
  - Republicans: 29%
  - Independents/Others: 24%
Personal Importance of Immigration:
- 9% of voters say immigration is the most important issue to them personally.
- Among political parties:
  - Democrats: 7%
  - Republicans: 15%
  - Independents/Others: 6%
Support for Immigration Policies:
- 78% of voters support deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and have committed crimes.
- 56% support deporting all immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.
- 68% support closing the border with added security and policies that discourage illegal crossings.
- 55% support using the military to prevent illegal immigration in the U.S.

Importance of Immigration as an Issue:
- 18-24 years: 21% consider immigration one of the most important issues.
- 25-34 years: 25%
- 35-44 years: 25%
- 45-54 years: 37%
- 55-64 years: 39%
- 65+ years: 38%

Insight: Concern about immigration increases with age, peaking among voters aged 55-64.

Support for Deporting All Immigrants Who Are in the U.S. Illeg ally:
- 18-24 years: 26% support
- 25-34 years: 36%
- 35-44 years: 36%
- 45-54 years: 49%
- 55-64 years: 61%
- 65+ years: 57%

Insight: Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants is significantly higher among older age groups, particularly those aged 55+.

Support for Using the Military to Prevent Illegal Immigration:
- 18-24 years: 31% support
- 25-34 years: 36%
- 35-44 years: 38%
- 45-54 years: 49%
- 55-64 years: 52%
- 65+ years: 60%

Insight: Support for using the military to prevent illegal immigration also increases with age, with the highest support among voters aged 65+.

In general, older age groups tend to prioritize immigration more and show stronger support for stricter immigration policies compared to younger voters.

Trump is boosting temporary farm visa workers to replace unauthorized workers

The Trump administration plans to greatly increase the size of the temporary visa program for farm workers (H-2A) as it aims to completely shut down the large unauthorized workforce. There is a key change planned for the program. Its aim is to reduce the cost to the employer of using visa workers– and to greatly increase the use of seasonal migrant labor.

In effect, the Trump administration seeks to completely rewrite the migration story of lower skilled workers for advanced countries, which was “We wanted workers but we got humans.” Its slogan: “We don’t want the humans, just the workers.”

The H-2A visa program began in 1952 allowing U.S. farmers to hire foreign workers for temporary or seasonal agricultural jobs when American workers are unavailable. (The program is for seasonal labor, not available for year-round dairy workers.) Usage has grown from 30,000 visas in 2000 to over 300,000 in 2023. The number of visas is uncapped. Roughly a fifth of visa holders for an agency which deploys the workers to farms.

The growth of use has mirrored a relative decline in unauthorized workers. The widely used estimate for unauthorized workers is over 50% of produce farm workers in California. Employers must prove they can’t find domestic hires, provide free housing, transportation, and pay at least the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) to prevent wage depression by using foreign workers this discriminating against U.S. workers.

The Department of Labor just issued an Interim Final Rule to overhaul H-2A wage rules. The net effect on H-2A workers is to reduce their pay. The Rule does this adjusting the minimum hourly wage by putting a higher value on free housing provided by the employer. Higher housing value (such as $300/month) than in the past causes the minimum wage to do down. It gives an example: a minimum hourly wage of $17,35 declines to $13.38. The Dept of Labor expects savings for large employers at $5,500 per year, for small employers at $2,200.

Meanwhile, hourly wages of farm workers in California’s Inland Empire have doubled from about $10 an hour in 2020 to about $20 an hour today. The effect of these changes appear to have zero impact on citizens working in farming. It will make the H-2A program more attractive to employers. It will make the H-2A program less attractive to Latin Americans.

Will fewer workers show up? The short answer, based on studies (such as here and here) is no – that the differential in wages for farm workers in, say, Mexico, and the H-2A program is so large that workers will still come. Expected result: a large increase in the H-2A workforce. Given as there may over 400,000 unauthorized farm workers in California alone, this change plus ICE enforcement can lead to a doubling of the size of the temporary visa program.

Go here for interesting insights about unauthorized farm workers.

Update on Abrego Garcia, in detention since August

Excerpts from a NY Times article:

Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court in Maryland had called the hearing to give the Trump administration a chance to demonstrate evidence of lawful plans to deport Mr. Abrego Garcia soon, without which she said she was inclined to release him.

If Judge Xinis orders Mr. Abrego Garcia released, it would be his first time walking free since he was briefly released for three days in August, after two judges ruled against Mr. Abrego Garcia’s continued detention for criminal charges the administration is separately pursuing against him. The release would also amount to the latest judicial rebuke of the Trump administration in a long and twisting case that began with what officials admitted was an “administrative error” that led to Mr. Abrego Garcia’s detention in a Salvadoran prison.

Central to the argument on Friday was whether administration officials had found a country where to take Mr. Abrego Garcia, who has been barred from deportation to his native El Salvador because he fears his life would be in danger there.

The Trump administration had previously floated Uganda and Eswatini as the primary options. But the government’s key witness, John Schultz, said no African countries to which the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego Garcia had agreed to take him.

For weeks, Mr. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who is married to a U.S. citizen, has made clear that he would not challenge his deportation if he were sent to Costa Rica, which has promised him legal residency and guaranteed that he would not be sent back to El Salvador. Mr. Schultz not only could not explain why the administration had refused to consider Costa Rica but also said he had been unaware that Costa Rica had provided such assurances to Mr. Abrego Garcia.

“You’re not even close,” the judge told administration lawyers at one point during the six-hour session. “We’re getting to ‘three strikes and you’re out.’”

Facts about Hispanics in the U.S.

The U.S. Hispanic population is now one fifth (19.5%) of the total population, compared with under 15% twenty years ago in 2005.

This growth is due to immigration and younger age (and therefore more birth production). This mirrors the age profile: the median age of Hispanics is 31 vs the non-Hispanic population at 41. Interestingly, the fertility rate among Hispanic women, while relatively high in the past, is today very close to the national average of about 1.75. Even if Hispanic migration grounds to a halt, the relative youth of Hispanics mean many more Hispanic births in the next 20 years.

Since 2010, the Hispanic population has grown annually (compounded) by 2%; the entire non-Hispanic population by 0.4% and the non-Hispanic white population by negative 0.25%.

Hispanic household formation grew an annual average of 2.8% vs non- Hispanics at 0.7%. Nearly half (44%) of Hispanic heads of household are Gen Z or Millennials (i.e. born after 1980), compared to only 32% of non-Hispanic homes. Hispanic home ownership since 2010 grew six times faster than non-Hispanic home ownership. Household formation is a foundation to a country’s economic health.

Average income growth among Hispanics since 2010 has been 3.8% vs non-Latino at 1.5%. In 2005, the median individual annual income of Hispanics was 40% less than that of whites. Today, it is 25% less (but about by the same absolute amount of $25,000). This is likely do less

Higher education: between 2005 and 2019, Hispanic bachelor’s degree attainment grew at twice the rate (64% vs 31.7%) of non-Hispanic whites during this period.

Between 2010 and 2023 the Hispanic “GDP” (analyzed here) grew by 75% vs 27% for the non-Hispanic population. On an annual basis, the Hispanic GDP growth (compounded) averaged 4%.