Dear Immigrant: The Job Is Not the Life

Letter 07

Re: The Job Is Not the Life

Dear Immigrant,

In the first years, it is easy to confuse the job with the life. The job is what you came for, in the practical sense — the income, the visa status, the structure of the day. It fills the hours and it provides the identity marker that the new country understands: what do you do. You are what you do, in the way the new country reads people, and having a job is the evidence that you exist in a legible form.

But the job is not the life. The life is everything the job does not cover: the relationships, the community, the things you do because they give you something that money does not measure, the interior growth that happens outside of working hours.

Immigrants who reduce their lives to the job are, in my observation, the immigrants who are most likely to arrive at year five or year ten having built financial stability and nothing else. They have the salary and the apartment and the credit score. They do not have the community or the depth or the sense that the life they are living belongs fully to them. The job was the means. The life was supposed to be the end. Somewhere in the accumulation of working hours, the means became the end and the end was forgotten.

Protect time for the things that are not the job. This is harder than it sounds when you are working long hours and recovering from long hours and calling home and managing paperwork and trying to survive financially. There is not much time left. Use what there is for something that feeds you.

The job provides the platform. The life is what you build on it. Do not confuse the platform for the building.

From someone who eventually remembered to build,
A former immigrant

dearimmigrant.com

Court Declares Unlawful the Department of Education’s Rule Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

Washington, D.C. — The Trump Administration’s attempt to politicize the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is unlawful, a federal judge ruled today. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that threatened to disqualify certain employers from eligibility for PSLF. 

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed in November 2025 by Public Citizen Litigation Group and Student Defense on behalf of the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center, the American Immigration Council, The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc., and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

The lawsuit challenged a rule finalized in October 2025 that allowed ED to disqualify an employer from the PSLF program if the Secretary of Education determined that the organization had a “substantial illegal purpose.” Under the rule, ED gave itself the unilateral power to decide whether an organization had such a purpose, based on the organization’s participation in activities that the current administration disapproves of concerning immigration, discrimination, gender-affirming care, and other matters.

As the plaintiffs explained in the motion granted today, the rule violated the state governing the PSLF program and allowed arbitrary enforcement against mission-driven organizations doing work or expressing opinions that the government opposes. The organizations asked the court to declare the new rule unlawful because, among other things, ED lacks the legal authority to change the statutory criteria for PSLF.

“The court’s ruling is a major victory for those who work in the public interest and the communities they serve. People who devote their careers to public service and non-profit work deserve access to loan forgiveness on the terms Congress promised, without the threat of retribution from the Trump administration.” said Cormac Early, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case.

“Today’s decision is a victory for student loan borrowers, for the First Amendment, and for the rule of law,” said Aaron Ament, President of Student Defense. “Public servants should not have to worry that the federal government will punish them because of their employer’s mission or perceived political views. We’re relieved that the court ruled our government must follow through on its promise of loan forgiveness for the millions of teachers, military personnel and other public servants who have dedicated their lives to making our country a better place, regardless of ED’s opinions.”

“The Trump administration’s baseless and blatant attempt to revoke Congressionally appointed benefits wasn’t just a threat to our nonprofit employees,” said Kerry Kennedy, president of the Kennedy Human Rights Center. “It was a threat to everyone we serve, to the women, men, and children who rely on our organization to protect their most fundamental human rights. Today’s decision is an important victory, and an affirmation of what Congress decided almost twenty years ago – public servants should be supported.”

“Today’s decision protects public servants from a rule that would have punished them for simply working to support immigrant families and other underserved communities targeted by this administration. Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created to encourage people to work to help underserved communities and populations. This ruling affirms that the government cannot rewrite the terms of that promise for political reasons,” said Jorge Loweree, Managing Director of Programs and Strategy at the American Immigration Council. 

“Today’s decision is a victory for public service professionals and the communities they serve. Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created to encourage educators, counselors, social workers, attorneys, and other professionals to dedicate their careers to serving others and strengthening their communities. For organizations like The Door, that means being able to attract and retain the talented staff who help young people access opportunity, overcome challenges, and build stable futures. We are grateful that the court upheld that commitment,” said Kelsey Louie, CEO of The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc. 

“This ruling is a victory for every public servant who chose to dedicate their career to lifting up their community, and for the Latino families those public servants serve. The Department of Education does not get to rewrite the promise Congress made, and it certainly does not get to punish organizations like ours for the advocacy and civil rights work that is at the heart of our mission,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of the LULAC Institute. 

Read the ruling here.

Read the original complaint here.

###

About Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center:

The Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that works across the courtroom, the boardroom, and the classroom to build a more just and peaceful world. Inspired by the legacies of Senator Robert and Ethel Kennedy, we work with international and domestic partners to protect fundamental human rights. We pursue strategic litigation to hold governments accountable at home and around the world; foster a social good approach to business; and train the next generation of changemakers through our human rights education programs.

About the American Immigration Council:

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration. The Council employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on LinkedIn, BlueSky, Instagram and YouTube. 

About The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc. 

For over 50 years, The Door has been a trusted place for young people between 12 and 24. All are welcome as they are, to be themselves, address challenges, and access services when and how they need them. With roots in the heart of New York City and a presence across the boroughs, The Door offers comprehensive programs and services, including mental health counseling, health and nutrition assistance, legal services, housing support, arts, education, and career guidance. At The Door, everything is free and everyone is welcome. 

The Door’s on-site charter high school, Broome Street Academy, serves 300 students per year from across all five boroughs, with reserved seats for students who are transitionally housed or in foster care.

About The LULAC Institute

The LULAC Institute is the nonprofit arm of The League of United Latin American Citizens Institute (LULAC), the nation’s oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization. Founded in 1929, LULAC is committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of Latino Americans through advocacy, community building, and education. With a growing network of councils nationwide, LULAC remains steadfast in its mission to protect and empower millions of Latinos, contributing daily to America’s prosperity. For more information about LULAC and its initiatives, please visit www.LULAC.org.

About Public Citizen Litigation Group

Public Citizen Litigation Group is the litigating arm of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. For more than 50 years, the Litigation Group has worked to advance the interests of consumers, workers, and the public, and to hold the government and corporations accountable to the people. Read more at https://ift.tt/FNOLC9Y. 

About Student Defense

The National Student Legal Defense Network (“Student Defense”) is a non-profit organization that works, through litigation and advocacy, to advance students’​ rights to educational opportunity and to ensure that higher education provides a launching point for economic mobility.

The post Court Declares Unlawful the Department of Education’s Rule Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/x4EwAlO
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

The Immigrant Spouse's First Year: U.S. Systems as Experienced from the Outside In

The following story is an aggregation of multiple versions of the same story.

The first thing America asked my wife was not who she was. It was whether she had a credit history.

She didn't. She had a life — a career, a reputation, years of work that meant something where she came from. None of that transferred. The system didn't have a field for it. What the system had was a score, and her score was nothing, which is different from zero but feels the same when you're standing at a bank counter trying to open a checking account.

This is what I want to write about. Not the romance of immigration, not the difficulty of leaving, not the longing — all of that is real but it has been written. I want to write about the six months after arrival, when the person you love is formally present in the country and functionally invisible to every institution in it.

She came with the right documents. The process had taken the better part of a year, required a medical examination, background checks, an interview, forms whose names I still can't remember. The government recognized her. And then she stepped outside the government's recognition and into the private systems — banking, credit, employment verification, insurance — and those systems looked at her record and saw a blank.

The blank is the thing. Not hostility. Not malice. Just a form that requires a history she hasn't had time to build yet, asking for years of evidence she couldn't have accumulated because she wasn't here.

Work authorization came first, because without it nothing else moved. The application was filed. The application was pending. We waited. While we waited, she couldn't be paid for work she was qualified to do, work she had been doing professionally for years in another country. The credential existed. The authorization didn't. The system processes these things independently and sees no tension in that.

When authorization came through, the next wall was banking. To open certain accounts you need a credit history. To build a credit history you need accounts. The circularity is not accidental. The banks are not being cruel. They are applying a risk model that was built around people who grew up inside the system, and she grew up outside it, and the model simply does not have a category for that. She was not a bad risk. She was an unreadable one. The system's response to the unreadable is the same as its response to the bad: decline, or heavily qualify, or require a co-signer, or offer the secured card with the low limit and the high fee.

Insurance required a federal benefits number, which she had. It also required employment verification, or enrollment status, or a sponsoring institution, depending on which coverage we were trying to access. Each system had its own intake logic. Each intake logic had been designed for a particular kind of entrant. She was a different kind. The workarounds existed, but you had to know to look for them, and the people at the front desk often didn't know either.

Medical history was its own problem. She had records. They were in another language, in another country's format, organized around another country's diagnostic categories. The intake form asked about her history and she answered it accurately and the system had nowhere to put the answers. Prior physician: not applicable. Prior insurance carrier: not applicable. She wasn't hiding anything. The form just wasn't built to receive what she had.

This is the mechanism. American institutions — the private ones especially, but the public ones too in their own ways — are built around a particular developmental timeline. You are born here, or you arrive young enough to move through the pipeline from the beginning. You accumulate a federal benefits record, a credit file, an insurance history, an employment verification trail. Each institution you enter can read the record the previous institution produced. The system is legible to itself. The person who grew up inside it is legible to the system.

My wife grew up outside it. She arrived as a fully formed adult with a full adult history, and that history was written in a format the system couldn't parse. She wasn't starting over. She was starting in parallel — continuing her actual life while simultaneously beginning, from scratch, to produce the documentation trail that American institutions require before they will recognize a person as a participant.

What this costs is not dramatic. It is not a single crisis. It is the accumulation of small frictions, each one manageable, together constituting something that takes real time and real energy to move through. A few months where you can't be paid. A year or more before the credit score means anything. The constant translation work — explaining your situation to intake systems that weren't designed to receive it, finding the exception process, waiting for the exception to be processed. All of this falls primarily on her, because I already exist in the system and she is the one who doesn't yet.

Who benefits from this arrangement is a fair question. The banks that issue secured cards to new arrivals at elevated fees benefit. The employers who can pay less during the authorization gap benefit, if they are the kind of employers who do that. Mostly, though, I don't think the friction is designed to extract value. I think it is designed around a person who was never my wife, and my wife has to navigate it anyway.

The principle I take from this is about legibility and cost. Institutions require you to be legible to them before they will serve you. Legibility is produced over time, through participation in systems that generate records. If you arrive as an adult from outside the system, you are not yet legible, regardless of who you are or what you have done. The cost of becoming legible falls on you, and the institution does not acknowledge that there is a cost, because from inside the system, the process looks like a neutral set of requirements applied equally to everyone. The requirements are only equal if you started in the same place. She didn't. Most immigrants don't.

This is year one. The legibility is building. The credit score exists now and is no longer embarrassing. The work authorization is valid. The insurance is sorted. Each of these took the time it took, and during the time it took, she was here, living a life the institutions couldn't quite see yet.

She is more patient about this than I am. She has a framework for it that I don't — she has navigated institutional opacity before, in other countries, for other reasons. What surprises her is not that the American system is hard to enter. What surprises her is that it doesn't seem to know it is.

In Blow to Asylum Rights, Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Block Asylum Seekers at Border

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, and that doing so does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, addressed a now-defunct policy, under which immigration officers at official border crossings physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouting the government’s legal responsibility to inspect and process those seeking asylum. As Justice Sotomayor explained in a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the Court’s decision “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands.”

This afternoon immigrant rights advocates will gather for a virtual media briefing at 3:00 pm ET/12:00 pm PT to discuss the decision.

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago. For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture, and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders and exercise their legal right to seek asylum,” said Erika Pinheiro, Al Otro Lado’s Executive Director. “This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost.”

The turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed “metering” by government officials, broke with both international and federal asylum law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful. 

“As explained by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the Court’s decision to greenlight the government’s turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “The ball is now in Congress’s court to enact legislation correcting the Court’s error and ensuring that arriving asylum seekers are not forced back to violent and life-threatening situations.” 

The ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that, for more than a century, have required government officials to inspect all people presenting themselves at designated ports of entry. And since Congress enacted asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has ensured that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.

“This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “The majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and trample on people’s legal rights if doing so suits his political agenda. The turnback policy did not merely delay entry for people seeking safety. For far too many asylum seekers, the policy denied entry entirely. In some cases, that became a death sentence. While this decision is a significant blow, our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge. We will never turn our backs on those who look to the United States for safety and justice.”

“My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Angelo Guisado.  

“On the 250th anniversary year of the United States, our federal executive branch is abandoning its obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives and putting thousands of people – including children – in dangerous and dire situations,” said Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people and families in harm’s way. We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court abandoned today. Congress should act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers, but also the best of American values.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families. What we need is an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats people with dignity. Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. 

For more about the case, see the campaign website, No Turning Back.

---

Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice.  They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and people seeking asylum.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. 

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of courageous refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With strategic focus and unparalleled legal expertise, CGRS champions the most challenging cases, fights for due process, and promotes policies that deliver safety and justice for refugees.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. 

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law. ICAP engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect our democratic processes.

The post In Blow to Asylum Rights, Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Block Asylum Seekers at Border appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/MSRLoO9
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

New Report Shows Immigrants in the Akron-Canton Region Contributed $5.0 billion to Region’s GDP

Ohio, June 18, 2026 – New research from the American Immigration Council underscores the crucial role immigrants play in Ohio’s labor force, housing market, population growth, and economy. The new report was prepared in partnership with Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions, a statewide 100+ member business coalition powered by the American Immigration Council, and the Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance. The report focuses on the Akron-Canton region of Ohio. 

In response to persistent workforce gaps and the need for sustainable talent pipelines, ACAA convened regional and national leaders to examine how immigration is impacting the Akron-Canton economy and its future growth. The report was released as part of that discussion, featuring insights from U.S. Congressman Michael Rulli (OH-6), U.S. Congresswoman Emilia Sykes (OH-13), Patrick Shen of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from the American Immigration Council and Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions. The conversation reinforced that immigration is not an abstract national issue, but a local economic reality—grounded in facts and focused on helping the region move forward. 

“The findings of this report demonstrate the value and importance of immigrants’ economic contributions to the Akron and Canton regions of Ohio,” said Juan Avilez, Policy Associate of the State and Local Initiatives team at the American Immigration Council. “In particular, it shows that immigrants are supporting the region in big ways – they contributed $5.0 billion to the region’s GDP and held $1.8 billion in spending power – showing why it’s important their contributions are recognized.” 

“The findings out of Akron-Canton confirm what we’re seeing across Ohio: immigrants are essential to the strength of our communities and our economy. Akron-Canton is one story among many,” said Madison Lisotto Whalen, Esq., Ohio Business for Immigration Solution Coalition. “From our manufacturing floors to our hospitals, immigrants are helping communities across the state stay vibrant, competitive, and positioned for long-term growth.” 

“The ACAA brings leaders together around the issues that matter most to our business community, and workforce is at the top of that list. Employers consistently tell us their biggest challenge is finding, attracting, and retaining the talent needed to grow,” said John Rizzo, Vice President of the Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance. “This research paints a clear picture of the role immigrant populations play in our economy and informs a more data-driven approach to strengthening our talent pipeline. The ACAA will continue to bring forward data, convene leaders, and advocate for policies that reflect the real needs of our business community and support long-term economic success. 

Key Findings

• Immigrants in the Akron-Canton region contributed billions in taxes and consumer spending. In 2023, immigrant households earned $2.5 billion in income, with $446.0 million going to federal taxes and $227.5 billion going to state and local taxes, leaving them with $1.8 billion in spending power that can be reinvested back into local communities. Robust consumer spending by immigrant households supports small businesses and keeps local economic corridors vibrant. 
• Immigrant residents are helping Akron-Canton meet its labor force demands and will help meet future needs. In 2023, immigrants were 21.6 percent more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts, and made-up 8.7 percent of workers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. This means that immigrants in the Akron-Canton region played an outsized role in the area’s labor force and technological growth. 
• Immigrants in Akron-Canton are supporting the preservation of American manufacturing. Immigrant workers accounted for 6.0 percent of the manufacturing industry and 5.9 percent of the transportation and warehousing industries in 2023. Immigrants living in the region helped to create or preserve around 2,700 manufacturing jobs that would have been eliminated or moved by 2023.  
• Immigrant entrepreneurs have contributed to growing local economies. Immigrants were 35.9 percent more likely to be an entrepreneur than their U.S.-born counterparts in the Akron-Canton region. In 2023, 3,800 immigrant entrepreneurs generated $166.9 million in business income. Signifying the ability of immigrants in building and supporting new, revenue generating businesses.   
• Immigrants are helping stabilize population trends and will play a critical role in the Akron-Canton region’s future growth. Between 2018 and 2023, while the region’s overall population remained flat, the immigrant population grew by 11.4%, increasing from 52,500 to 58,400 residents. Without this growth, the region would have experienced population decline. As demographic challenges persist across many Midwest communities, this trend underscores the importance of immigrants in sustaining population levels, supporting community vitality, and positioning the region for long-term economic stability and growth. 

Read the full factsheet to learn more.   

The post New Report Shows Immigrants in the Akron-Canton Region Contributed $5.0 billion to Region’s GDP  appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/kbj3zox
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant