The Immigration Landscape & Implications for Young Children Rebecca Ullrich, Policy Analyst Child Care and Early Education The Immigration Landscape & Implications for Young Children Alliance for Early Success 2018 Partner Summit Denver, CO | November 2018 Brief overview on what’s been going on in the immigration space at the federal level, and ways that you all working in states can get engaged on these issues both federally and in your states and localities.

1 in 4 Young Children Are Members of an Immigrant Family < 10% 10 – 17% 17 – 24% 24 – 31% > 31% Always like to start by reiterating that young children in immigrant families are a large and growing share of our young child population, forging a strong connection between your work as children’s advocates and immigration policy. Nationally, 1 in 4 young children live in an immigrant family—5.7 million under age 6. And while the share varies widely by state, impt to emphasize that children are everywhree But across the board, the vast majority of children in immigrant families are U.S. citizens. Most live with parents who have some form of lawful immigration status, such a lawful permanent residents or “greencard holders”. However, a sizable portion—1.6 million under age 5—live in mixed-status families with at least one undocumented parent. (note age groups don’t perfectly align) Don’t have state-by-state numbers on hand, but share of children with undocumented parents also varies by state. Estimates available from our friends @ MPI

Administrative and Legislative Threats 1 2 3 Since the beginning of the administration, President Trump and leadership at DHS and other agencies have engaged in a coordinated effort to make life difficult for immigrants in this country and to try scare away those who might be considering coming to the U.S. Think about the major threats to immigrant families as falling into 3 categories. Going to talk through each one in the context of a specific example. Have just enough time to hit the highlights, so if anyone has questions save them for the end or grab me afterwards. Increasing enforcement Removing legal protections Reducing access to public benefits

Family Separation and Detention as an Enforcement Strategy 27,080 Parents of citizen-children deported in FY 17 2,600+ Children separated from their parents First category includes efforts to ramp up enforcement in the U.S. and at our borders. Administration has used a few different strategies to this end: --increasing number of ICE and CBP agents, most recently deploying troops to the Southern border --demanding money for border security, namely the border wall --increasing the number of immigrants potentially subject to enforcement These enforcement strategies are all part of a broader, coordinated effort to deter families from coming to the U.S. and penalize those who eventually arrive Am sure many of you were following the crisis of families being separated at the border over the summer This was the result of a “zero tolerance” policy for immigrants arriving to the US without documentation Now one of the most infamous efforts to deter and penalize immigrant families These are overwhelmingly Central American families fleeing violence in their home countries and coming to the U.S. seeking asylum. While most of these children have been reunited with their parents, many remain separated Reunification efforts are ongoing while the administration continues to attack this population—family detention, asylum ban, etc. Remind you that children aren’t just being separated from their parents at the border Heightened enforcement means family separations are happening here in Colorado, in DC, in North Carolina, in Tennessee, and elsewhere around the country every day Last fiscal year, more than 27,000 parents of citizen-children were deported. These are the children being served by ECE programs in your community, for whom your advocacy can play a direct role in their day-to-day lives

Revoking Temporary Protected Status for Thousands of Immigrants TPS is a temporary, renewable immigration status that provides work authorization and protection from deportation TPS population U.S.-born children Avg. years in U.S. U.S. total 302,000 273,200 19 California 55,000 54,700 22 Florida 44,800 28,100 14 Maryland 22,500 18,400 20 New Jersey 13,900 8,800 North Carolina 13,100 11,600 Texas 53,800 Virginia 23,500 21,200 Second category is removing protections for immigrants previously granted discretion—about taking away status for specific immigrant populations who’d been granted some form of temporary protection from deportation. Likely familiar with DACA—may have engaged in some of the advocacy efforts around Dream Act, but today going to talk about TPS, which you may be less familiar with. TPS A temporary, renewable immigration status Provides work authorization; protection from deportation (but not a pathway to citizenship) For folks from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters, and other extreme and unsafe conditions. Today, issued to nearly 440,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries. Chart shows some characteristics of TPS holders in the U.S. and in the 7 states w/ largest populations, looking specifically at El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti (where majority are from) As you can see, most TPS holders have been living in the U.S. for decades. They are parents, home owners, entrepreneurs, and members of their communities. Nationally, 273,200 U.S. citizen-children have a parent with TPS. President Trump has announced that he will not continue TPS for foreign nationals from 7 of the 9 countries he has reviewed, including the three countries w/ the most TPS holders. Decision based on the interpretation that these countries were no longer feeling the effects of the original disaster or conflict that made them eligible for TPS in the first place. Worth noting that Honduras & El Salvador—two of the countries whose TPS was ended—are major countries families coming to border seeking asylum are fleeing from Several legal challenges filed almost immediately. Lead plaintiff in one lawsuit is a 14-year-old citizen-child of a TPS holder from El Salvador. Judge placed preliminary injunction on the termination of TPS for recipients from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Allows TPS holders from these countries to maintain or renew their status as litigation continues. But relief is temporary, and the uncertainty continues. If admin is successful, would be destabilizing for hundreds of thousands families across the country. Families facing question of whether to stay or go, if they stay, how to continue supporting families w/o work authorization… Characteristics of TPS Holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. Center on Migration Studies, http://cmsny.org/tpstablesbystate/.

Proposed “Public Charge” Provisions Would Undercut Access to Vital Programs Proposed benefits included: Cash assistance SNAP Housing assistance Medicaid 3. Efforts to reduce immigrant families’ access to public benefits—has been largely through “public charge” “Public charge” is a provision in immigration law that is intended to identify individuals who would be primarily dependent on government support in the future. When making this determination, government officials consider a range of different factors, including whether they have ever received cash assistance or government-funded long-term care. If an immigrant is deemed likely to become a public charge, he or she can be denied entry to the U.S. or lawful permanent residency (a green card). On October 10, the administration published an NPRM announcing its intention to dramatically expand the scope of public charge in two ways. First, changes definition of public charge to an individual who is likely to at any time apply for or receive one or more public benefits. List of public benefits to consider now include Medicare Part D, SNAP, housing assistance, and non-emergency Medicaid Second, creates a set of weighted standards for officials to consider during public charge determinations. These standards emphasize wealth and work, and overwhelmingly disadvantage immigrants who are low income, have limited English proficiency, and who are parents. Recent research from MPI found that 69% of recent green card recipients would’ve been at risk of being denied status under the proposed standards. Impact of proposed rule would extend far beyond immigrants who are applying for permanent status in the future. Map shows the number of children who might experience a “chilling effect,” or be scared away from progs & services due to the proposed rule. Predictably, largest # of chilled population are in CA, TX—but impacts would be felt all over the country. Estimates are bolstered by other research, including CLASP’s own interviews and focus groups with ECE providers & immigrant parents Recent analysis of SNAP enrollment data finding sharp decline in early 2018 among immigrant mothers living in US < 5 years

Defending Against Threats to Immigrant Families Public charge Submit comments at https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/ Sector-based comments Document the impact Develop partnerships Speak out on harmful state policies Turning to ways to take action… First, I think many of you in the room are aware that CLASP co-chairs the Protecting Immigrant Families or PIF Campaign with our partners at NILC. The campaign includes 275 active member organizations from around the country…

Advancing a Positive Agenda at the State Level New governors, new legislators, new opportunities Proactively communicating about policy changes Sensitive locations or “safe space” policies Clarifying immigrant eligibility for public benefit and early childhood programs

Contact Information Rebecca Ullrich Policy Analyst, Child Care and Early Education rullrich@clasp.org 12