Politics
In The Community
On January 18, 2025, Washington, D.C., will once again become a hub of public dissent with The People’s March, hosted by Women’s March. This demonstration comes at a historic moment, just days before Donald Trump begins his second term as president. Framed as a collective stand against policies that organizers see as harmful to equality and justice, the march aims to unite voices from across the nation in an act of resistance and hope.
Scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM, the march will likely take place near the U.S. Capitol as in previous Women’s March events, but the exact location is yet to be announced. Participants are encouraged to arrive by 9:30 AM, with the rally expected to continue until 3:00 PM. The event seeks to channel people’s energy and determination into a collective call for change, addressing a wide range of issues from women’s rights to immigrant justice and LGBTQ+ equality.
A Platform for Diverse Voices
At its core, the organizers describe The People's March as not just about opposition, but also about creating a space for advocacy, connection, and a shared vision of progress. Tamika Middleton, Managing Director of Women’s March, emphasized the importance of this inclusive approach. "We want to push against this notion of hopelessness, this sort of fear that we see people leaning into demobilization and demoralization. We're also trying to make visible a resistance...We want to demonstrate that there are people who will continue to stand up and fight against [Trump's policies],” she shared with Time Magazine.
The march is expected to bring together a coalition of individuals and groups united by a commitment to justice. From climate action to racial equity, the event aims to amplify voices that often go unheard, reminding the nation of the power of collective action.
Emiliana Guereca, Co-Chair of the Women’s March Foundation, also highlighted the power of coming together for a common goal in a recent press release. “The People’s March is about collective power. We are not just here to resist; we are here to lead. The policies and attacks coming our way will be cruel, but our resolve is stronger. Together, we will fight for justice, equality, and a future where all people thrive, no matter the political landscape.”
Continuing a Legacy of Activism
The People’s March builds on the historic momentum of the first Women’s March, held on January 21, 2017. That event, sparked by Trump’s initial inauguration, saw hundreds of thousands of people flood the streets wearing pink hats, which became symbolic of that historic Women’s March. It remains one of the largest single-day protests in the U.S., gathering around 470,000 people in D.C., and an estimated 4.6 million people across the country in a variety of related events.
In the years since, Women’s March has evolved, addressing criticisms of exclusivity and working to become a more inclusive movement. The decision to rebrand the 2025 event as The People's March underscores this commitment to inclusivity, aiming to create a space where everyone concerned about the future can feel represented and heard.
“We know that we're going to have to have all of them, poor folks, middle class folks. We're going to need women. We're going to need queer, trans folks and non binary folks. We're going to need men,” Middleton shared with Time Magazine. “We're going to need all of us really in this struggle together in order to fight back against what we see coming.”
Bold Action That Goes Beyond Marching
As the date approaches, organizers are framing The People's March as a rallying cry for civic engagement at a critical time. Women’s March has been clear about the stakes, declaring on their website: “We are not done. With Trump set to return to the White House early next year, we’re facing a moment that calls us to act boldly. It’s time to march.” This bold call to action reflects the urgency many feel as they prepare for the potential challenges of Trump’s second term.
The People's March is designed as one part of a broader strategy to foster long-term political engagement, with the hope that participants will carry the energy of the day into ongoing efforts to help keep everyday people engaged in political action and discourse. “What we are trying to do is offer a vision of a different world, to offer something, a vision of change that speaks to all of us, and that includes all of us,” is how Middleton describes the vision.
Women’s March organizers are committed to turning protest into progress through initiatives like the Digital Defenders program, which equips activists to combat disinformation, and the Feminist Night School, an educational platform designed to empower and inform. These programs reflect a dedication to ensuring that the march is not an endpoint but a springboard for sustained activism.
A Stand for Justice and a Call to Action
The Women’s March is calling on people across the country to join The People's March, whether in person or in spirit. Sister marches in cities like Los Angeles offer additional opportunities for engagement, and those unable to attend can participate virtually or support the cause through donations and volunteer efforts. Organizers also encourage people to explore ongoing initiatives and educational resources as a way to stay involved beyond January 18.
As the nation prepares for another Trump presidency, The People's March hopes to create a defining moment for those committed to protecting civil rights, equality, and democracy. Organizers hope that the activism doesn’t end with a single event, but instead be looked at as a continuous effort, driven by hope, resistance, and a belief in a better future. By uniting diverse voices and focusing on both immediate and long-term goals, The People's March seeks to inspire long-term transformation.
Birthright citizenship—a cornerstone of American identity—has become the subject of intense national debate as President-elect Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to end it. This principle, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, grants automatic citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status or nationality. As Trump’s plans take shape, they raise pressing questions about the future of inclusivity, equality, and the rights of millions, especially within the Latino community.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Established in 1868 after the Civil War, birthright citizenship was designed to ensure newly freed Black Americans and their descendants could claim full citizenship. It guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are recognized as U.S. citizens.
Over the past 150 years, this principle has been upheld by the courts, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This landmark ruling established that children born to immigrant parents in the U.S. are citizens, making birthright citizenship a bedrock of American law from that day forward.
While exceptions exist—such as children of foreign diplomats—birthright citizenship is a vital safeguard, ensuring that no child born in the U.S. becomes stateless. In a global context, this policy is rare, found primarily in the Americas, and aligns the U.S. with international human rights principles.
Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship
President-elect Trump views birthright citizenship as a loophole that enables unauthorized immigration. His plan centers on issuing an executive order to redefine the criteria for automatic citizenship. Under this proposal, children born in the U.S. would only qualify for citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Federal agencies would also be directed to withhold key benefits—such as passports and Social Security numbers—from children of undocumented immigrants.
This proposed policy shift is expected to face immediate legal challenges, as it directly conflicts with long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Trump and his supporters argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been misinterpreted for decades and doesn’t extend to children of undocumented immigrants. The administration’s ultimate goal is to bring the issue before the Supreme Court, potentially overturning over a century of legal precedent.
How Would This Impact Latinos?
For the Latino community, the consequences of eliminating birthright citizenship would be far-reaching. Latinos make up approximately 19.5% of the total U.S. population as of 2023, a significant number, and generationally, they have relied on birthright citizenship as a road to full integration into American society. The exception to this is descendants of native Mexicans who became U.S. residents and citizens after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American war in 1848.
If birthright citizenship were repealed, Latino communities, which accounted for 71% of the overall growth of the U.S. population in 2023, would be disproportionately affected by it. Families and people already navigating complex immigration systems would now have to navigate additional layers of currently unknown bureaucracy.
Without birthright citizenship, future generations of Latinos born on U.S. soil could find themselves stateless. Latino children without citizenship would lack the same access to education, healthcare, and other basic services. They wouldn’t be able to legally work, drive, open bank accounts, or even register the births of their own children. These are the building blocks of a secure and stable life, and without them, surviving in the U.S. would become immediately arduous.
This policy change would also hit certain groups harder than others. According to the Pew Research Center, Mexico remains the leading country of origin for immigrants in the U.S. As of 2022, approximately 23% of the total U.S. immigrant population was made up of Mexicans. Latin America, excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, accounted for 27% of the total U.S. immigrant population, meaning the fallout would overwhelmingly affect those communities.
Beyond the numbers, the social stigma and discrimination tied to being “unauthorized” could deepen. Latina women, in particular, could face increased marginalization as they try to navigate a system that denies their children basic rights based on their immigration status.
The impact on identity and belonging can’t be understated either. Birthright citizenship has always been a way for immigrant families to have a place in American society. Taking that away from Latino children born here would most certainly leave them feeling disconnected—from the U.S., where they were born, and from their parents’ countries of origin, which they might not even know. Such a change would undermine the idea of the U.S. as a nation that welcomes and integrates immigrants.
The Stakes for America
Ending birthright citizenship wouldn’t just change the law; it would upend lives, divide families, and reshape what it means to be an American. The Latino community would bear the brunt of this change, but the ripple effects would be felt across the nation and in all immigrant communities, challenging the ideals and principles of inclusion that have defined the U.S. since its founding.
Advocates for preserving birthright citizenship argue that doing so is essential for fostering social cohesion and ensuring the U.S. remains inclusive. The Latino community has long been a cornerstone of the nation’s cultural and economic fabric.
If the Trump administration is successful in repealing birthright citizenship, it will fundamentally impact not only the lives of millions of Latinos but also the broader trajectory of America’s identity and values. The coming legal and political battles will ultimately determine if this becomes a pivotal moment in history for the U.S.
- Advocates Rally to Protect Brooklyn Migrant Families from Trump’s Immigration Agenda ›
- Expat If You’re an American in Latin America, Immigrant If You’re a Latino in the U.S. ›
Deported with Twin Newborns: Texas Deportation Case Highlights Mixed-Status Family Struggles
Mother being deported with her child and other immigrants from the U.S. to Mexico, 2021.
The recent deportation of Christina Salazar-Hinojosa who voluntarily took her four children with her, which included two newborn twins, has brought renewed attention to the complex realities faced by mixed-status families in the United States.
Salazar-Hinojosa’s case reveals how a single event, such as a missed court date, can disrupt the lives of families whose members navigate different citizenship and immigration statuses. With her husband, Federico Arellano, a U.S. citizen, and three of her children holding the same status, Salazar-Hinojosa’s deportation has left the family divided and grappling with uncertain futures.
The Complexities of Salazar-Hinojosa’s Deportation
Mixed-status families live under the constant threat of separation, a risk that’s exacerbated by the challenges of navigating a difficult immigration system. For the family, this fear became a reality when Salazar-Hinojosa missed her immigration hearing on October 9 due to health complications after giving birth to premature twins. Her doctors advised her to recover at home. "I had to have an emergency C-section. My babies were born prematurely. I was very ill because of my hemorrhage,” Salazar-Hinojosa shared with NBC News.
According to Arellano and his attorney, Isaias Torres, the family informed the immigration court of Salazar-Hinojosa’s medical situation. They were told that the hearing would be rescheduled and later, received instructions to report to an immigration office in Greenspoint, Texas, to discuss Salazar-Hinojosa's case, as reported by Noticias Telemundo.
Salazar-Hinojosa stated that she attended the December 10th appointment believing it would be like her previous routine check-ins. However, immigration authorities arrested her during the meeting, separating her from her U.S. citizen husband. She took her four children with her—a 7-year-old, a 2-year-old, and newborn twins, even though 3 of them have U.S. citizenship.
Situations like this highlight the vulnerability of families who can be separated by a single procedural misstep. For U.S. citizen children, these separations often create emotional and logistical dilemmas, forcing them to leave their country of birth to remain with their parents or face life without them.
The intersection of healthcare and immigration further complicates the challenges faced by mixed-status families. Salazar-Hinojosa’s medical emergency during a critical legal period illustrates how healthcare needs can interfere with immigration obligations, leaving families with difficult choices. For children in these families, the consequences of parental deportation are profound, disrupting their stability, education, and psychological well-being.
Broader Implications for Immigrant Communities
The Arellano-Salazar-Hinojosa case reflects issues that many immigrant families face across the country. Some families avoid using public services, even when needed, out of fear of immigration-related consequences. This fear often leads to gaps in health and education for children in mixed-status households, who may not receive the same resources as their peers. The constant possibility of separation adds stress, especially for children, who may experience anxiety or struggle with social and emotional development.
This case also raises questions about how immigration laws are enforced and the impact on families trying to comply with legal requirements. Salazar-Hinojosa’s lawyer argued that there were legal options that could have prevented her deportation that he asserts were not given.
Public Opinion and Policy Context
This incident has sparked discussions about immigration policies and how they affect families. Many people support creating pathways to legalization and prioritizing family unity, but the current system often places families in complicated situations.
Salazar-Hinojosa shared with NBC News that she was denied legal representation at the moment of her deportation. She said, “He [her husband] wanted to see if we could get a lawyer to see what we could do, and they said no, that they had to take us now.” They also made her sign deportation forms, stating that if she didn’t, they would arrest and fine her husband.
This lack of legal representation during a key moment in their case underscores the importance of having access to proper legal guidance. Without it, families may face outcomes that could have been avoided with better support. At the same time, the case highlights the tension between immigration enforcement and humanitarian considerations. Advocates argue that families like the Arellano-Salazar-Hinojosas should not be penalized so harshly, especially when they are making efforts to comply with the law.
The deportation of Christina Salazar-Hinojosa and her children shows the rigidity of immigration policies that often don’t take family situations into account, cause harm to U.S. citizen children, and don’t prioritize protecting family stability.
- Expat If You’re an American in Latin America, Immigrant If You’re a Latino in the U.S. ›
- We Fit No Mold: Latinidad in America ›
