In The Community
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 ›
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced a groundbreaking new rule aimed at eliminating hidden fees and deceptive pricing practices in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries. This bipartisan decision, known as the Junk Fees Rule, is set to revolutionize how businesses present pricing information to consumers, ensuring transparency and fairness in these sectors.
Key Points of the Junk Fees Rule
Under the new Junk Fees Rule, businesses are required to display the total price, including all mandatory fees, upfront whenever they advertise or show prices for tickets or lodging. The total price on display must be the most prominent figure in advertisements, ensuring that consumers can easily see the full cost at a glance. The goal is to prevent “bait-and-switch” tactics that lure consumers in by a low base price, only for them to discover additional charges later on that significantly increase the final cost.
The rule also addresses situations where certain fees might not be included. If businesses choose to exclude some fees, such as taxes or optional services, from the advertised price, they must clearly explain these additional costs before the consumer completes their payment. This includes providing details about the nature, purpose, and amount of any excluded fees.
The FTC's decision to implement this rule followed extensive public input, with over 72,000 total comments received regarding the impact of hidden fees on consumer spending and competition. The final rule reflects a commitment to protecting consumers from unfair practices while allowing businesses some flexibility in their pricing strategies.
The Impact on Consumers and Businesses
The FTC estimates that this new regulation could save consumers a substantial amount of time, around 53 million hours a year, by reducing the effort needed to search for and calculate total costs. This time savings is projected to be equivalent to more than $11 billion over the next decade, highlighting the significant impact this rule is expected to have on consumer experiences and decision-making in these industries.
The rule aims to level the playing field for honest businesses by eliminating unfair competition from those who use deceptive pricing tactics. It doesn’t forbid any specific types or amounts of fees, nor does it ban any particular pricing strategies. Instead, it focuses on ensuring that consumers receive truthful and transparent pricing information upfront.
Implementation and Scope of the Junk Fees Rule
The Junk Fees Rule will take effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register. This means that businesses in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries will have approximately four months to adjust their pricing practices and ensure compliance with the new regulations. It’s worth noting that while it specifically targets these two industries, the FTC has stated that it will continue to pursue deceptive pricing practices in other industries through case-by-case enforcement.
While the rule has been finalized by the FTC, there are still some potential hurdles it may face. For instance, the new Congress could potentially invalidate the rule through the Congressional Review Act. Additionally, as with many new regulations, there's a possibility of legal challenges that could affect its implementation timeline.
Current Chair of the FTC, Lina M. Khan, emphasized the importance of this rule in the FTC press release, stating, “People deserve to know up-front what they're being asked to pay—without worrying that they'll later be saddled with mysterious fees that they haven't budgeted for and can't avoid.”
Khan’s tenure as FTC Chair is expected to come to an end in January 2025 when President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Khan's official term as commissioner ended in September 2024, but she stayed on under President Biden. President-elect Trump recently announced he has selected Andrew Ferguson, a current Republican FTC commissioner, to succeed Khan as the next FTC Chair.
Ferguson, who previously clerked for a Supreme Court Justice and advised Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, was appointed to the FTC by President Biden in 2023 and confirmed by the Senate in March 2024. Trump praised Ferguson's "established history of opposing Big Tech censorship and safeguarding Freedom of Speech" in his announcement.
In addition to Ferguson's appointment, Trump has nominated Mark Meador, a partner at a specialized antitrust law firm and former advisor to a senator, to serve as a Republican commissioner on the FTC. These appointments signal a potential shift in the FTC's approach to antitrust enforcement and regulation of big tech companies, with Ferguson pledging to end what he calls Big Tech's "vendetta against competition.”
While the rule has been finalized by the FTC, there are still some potential hurdles it may face. For instance, the new Congress could potentially invalidate the rule through the Congressional Review Act. Additionally, as with many new regulations, there's a possibility of legal challenges that could affect its implementation timeline.
- We Fit No Mold: Latinidad in America ›
- Under Pressure: New Study Reveals Latinas Carrying Enormous Weight of Cultural Expectations ›
Originally published in The Latino Newsletter–reprinted with permission.
Opinion for The Latino Newsletter.
David Medina Álvarez, a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant residing in Detroit, Michigan, had a thought: if there are electric cars, why not make electric ATVs? However, he faced a significant hurdle in turning his idea into reality—funding. The solution was through new Biden administration investments to support young entrepreneurs like himself aiming to contribute to the clean energy sector.
Thanks to a $200,000 government grant, David is working on hiring new talent and expanding his company, LIVAQ. There are thousands of aspiring entrepreneurs like David seeking to start a business and contribute to their local economies, as well as tens of thousands of workers looking for jobs. Over the past four years, the Biden administration’s clean energy investments have filled a necessary gap to meet both these needs. Unfortunately, job losses and missed funding opportunities are imminent if the incoming Trump administration makes good on its pledge to end all electric vehicle (EV) tax credits and investments.
EV sales have more than quadrupled in the last four years. This remarkable growth in EV manufacturing has been largely driven by government incentives such as tax credits, which have spurred private investments and increased national demand. However, eliminating these tax credits will substantially threaten the rapidly expanding clean energy sector and jobs it’s created for working-class people, including Latinos.
Saving American consumers over $1 billion this year, these tax credits have sustained thousands of manufacturing jobs while making electric vehicles more affordable and driving demand for clean energy technologies. Trump’s plan to eliminate these incentives could threaten jobs in communities across the country.
While Latinos make up 19% of the overall U.S. labor market, they represent an even larger share of the clean energy industry, comprising 21% of solar jobs and 22% of wind. This overrepresentation highlights the critical role that clean energy plays in providing employment opportunities for Latino communities. The current plan has spurred over 330,000 jobs across the country. Of the 646 new clean energy projects, 290 are in low-income communities, bringing $114 billion in investment and creating 134,385 jobs, demonstrating the sector's potential for economic revitalization.
The clean energy sector has been a significant driver of job creation, particularly for Latino workers. In 2023 alone, nearly one-third of the new energy jobs were held by Latinos, with the workforce growing by 79,000 individuals. Within that growth, clean energy jobs are growing at more than twice the rate of the overall economy, underscoring the sector's importance in providing stable, well-paying jobs to communities historically facing economic challenges.
If the Trump administration squashes these incentives, it risks stalling the sector’s growth, which could lead to job losses and reduced investment in communities that need it the most. For Latino workers, the stakes are particularly high. Clean energy has provided a pathway to economic stability and upward mobility for many Latino families. Jobs in this field often come with competitive wages and benefits, helping to lift workers out of poverty and into the middle class. Clean energy jobs also have higher unionization rates than the overall U.S. workforce. Any loss will devastate Latino communities, exacerbating existing economic disparities and limiting opportunities.
In addition, the sector has been instrumental in addressing climate change, an issue that disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities. Dismantling these efforts is a step backward.
Eliminating EV tax credits directly threatens all this. Support for clean energy investments is strong within the Latino community, and for good reason. We must continue to back policies that promote clean energy and safeguard the jobs critical to our nation's economic future. By maintaining these policies, we can ensure that all Americans, irrespective of their background, have the chance to thrive.
