2025 CSAD Biennial Conference: "A Nation of Immigrants?"

"Immigration Control and the Open Society" by Chandran Kukathas, March 26, 7:30 p.m. | Archon Auditorium (Oden L001)

Kukathas is a professor of political science at Singapore Management University and a former chair of political theory and head of the Department of Government at the London School of Economics.

"Life on the Move" by Caitlin Dickerson, March 27, 11:10 a.m. | Archon Auditorium (Oden L001)

Dickerson is a staff writer for the The Atlantic and a 2023 Pulitzer Prize winner for Explanatory Writing for "We Need to Take Away the Children."

"Ethical Considerations in Immigration Policy," March 26, 3-5 p.m. | Community Foundation Theater

• Christopher (Kit) Wellman, professor of philosophy, Washington University in St. Louis; co-author of “Debating the Ethics of Immigration” (Oxford University Press, 2011)

• Philip Cafaro, professor of philosophy, Colorado State University; author of “How Many Is Too Many? The Progressive Argument for Reducing Immigration into the United States” (University of Chicago Press, 2015)

• Tisha Rajendra, associate professor of Christian ethics, Loyola University Chicago, author of “Migrants and Citizens: Justice as Responsibility in the Ethics of Immigration” (Eerdmans Press, 2017).

• Nancy Powers (moderator), associate director of the Center for the Study of American Democracy and assistant professor of political science, Kenyon College

"Reactions and Consequences: The Politics of Recent Immigration Patterns and Policies," March 27, 8:45-10:45 a.m. | Community Foundation Theater

• David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, is an expert on legal immigration, border security and interior enforcement. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today and many other print and online publications. He was formerly a senior policy adviser for Rep. Raúl Labrador (R‑ID), who chaired the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  

• Daniel Tichenor, Philip H. Knight Chair of Social Science and director of the Program for Democratic Governance, Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics, University of Oregon; author of “Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America” (Princeton University Press, 2002).

• David Leal, professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin; co-editor of “Immigration and the Border: Politics and Policy in the New Latino Century” (University of Notre Dame Press, 2013) and of “Migration in an Era of Restriction and Recession: Sending and Receiving Nations in a Changing Global Environment” (Springer, 2016).

• Joseph Klesner (moderator), director of the Center for the Study of American Democracy and professor of political science, Kenyon College

"Immigrants, Refugees and the Law," March 27, 1:30-3:30 p.m. | Community Foundation Theater

• Laura Tuell, Firmwide Pro Bono partner, Jones Day

• Christine Dutko, children’s program staff attorney, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN)

• Melissa Crow, director of litigation, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

• Christopher Levesque (moderator), assistant professor of law and society and sociology, Kenyon College

"Immigration in Ohio," March 27, 4-6 p.m. | Newman Room, Lowell House

• Gina Pérez, professor of comparative American studies, Oberlin College; author of “Citizen, Student, Soldier: Latina/o Youth, JROTC and the American Dream” (New York University Press, 2015) and “Sanctuary People: Faith-Based Organizing in Latina/o Communities” (New York University Press, 2024).

• Michele Leiby, associate professor of political science, College of Wooster; co-principal investigator of a book project on rural Latinos in Ohio; co-author of “Human rights organizations as agents of change,” American Political Science Review (2015)

• Angela Plummer, executive director, Community Refugee and Immigration Services, Columbus

• Jeff Stewart, director, Immigrant Worker Project, Canton, Ohio

Wednesday afternoon’s panel brought together Philip Cafaro, Tisha Rajendra and Christopher Wellman to discuss ethical considerations related to immigration policy.

Disrupting assumptions about left-right positions on immigration policy, Philip Cafaro argued from a progressive, environmentalist position that immigration to the United States should be reduced. His argument rested on two premises: that the purpose of public policy is to benefit the common good (defined as the good of the people within a particular political community) and that immigration numbers rise or fall in response to policy changes. According to the data he presented, in certain occupations, higher numbers of immigrants correlates with higher unemployment levels among citizens, such that high immigration levels have an economic impact on United States citizens in some middle and lower-income occupations.

Furthermore, Cafaro said, immigration grows the U.S. population and higher population has substantial negative impacts on the environment, including habitat and wildlife destruction due to population-driven urban sprawl and higher carbon emissions.

Philosophy scholar Christopher Wellman took no position on closing or opening borders, but insisted on the unlimited right of a legitimate state to determine who can belong to their  societies. He based the “right to exclude” on three democratic foundations: legitimate states have a right to self-determination, freedom of association is an integral part of self-determination, and the right to choose not to associate with someone is an integral part of freedom of association. (For Wellman, legitimate states are those that protect human rights of their constituents and act with respect for the human rights of others. Arguably, few states across the globe meet this standard.) Wellman argued that states’ moral obligations and responsibilities to people in need can be met in ways other than immigration. Even safety for refugees could be achieved through alternate methods, such as military intervention to support human rights against an illegitimate state. The takeaway was that the principles of self-determination and freedom of association are fundamental to democracy, a consideration seldom heard in public discourse about security or individual rights. 

The third panelist, Tisha Rajendra, argued that states are morally responsible to welcome people who are migrating as a consequence of political and economic conditions those states had helped to create. Context and history create specific obligations, because immigration today emerges from foreign policy of decades past. Colonialism, military interventions, guestworker recruitment and other policies created relationships that in turn created ethical responsibilities to be open to immigration from countries where those unjust relationships occurred.

Questions from the audience resulted in a series of lively debates between the speakers, who disagreed on which ethical principles take priority and on the empirical facts about who is harmed by which policies. The breadth of views sparked a boisterous debate during the Q&A — and a successful start to the biennial conference.

Reported by CSAD student associates Maddie Barbar ‘27 and Cooper Bertschi ‘26. 

Today, we often hear that immigration infringes upon the freedoms of the local population. Many citizens in liberal democracies view immigration as a threat to their jobs, culture and ability to live freely. It is in such a context that Chandran Kukathas gave his keynote address. Rather than viewing immigration as the threat, Kukathas reframed the issue entirely, arguing that the true danger to a free society is not immigration itself, but immigration control. In our efforts to regulate immigrants, he said, we have managed to restrict our own freedoms. 

Kukathas began his talk by highlighting that our definitions of immigrants and citizens are arbitrary. These classifications are not based on objective characteristics but are dictated by law, which societies shape according to their needs and perceptions. Terms like nationality, immigrant, and citizen are mere tools used to structure society, and history has shown that their meanings constantly evolve. In defining these terms, governments determine the rights individuals have, the actions they are permitted to take, and the people they interact with. The first step to immigration control, argues Kukathas, is establishing a legal distinction between those who belong in a society and those who do not. When the state defines what an immigrant can or cannot do, it is also placing restrictions on its own citizens. Immigration control regulates whom one can hire, start a business with, or even fall in love with. To illustrate the dangers of such control, Kukathas draws an analogy to apartheid, arguing that society’s fixation on regulating immigrants reflects deeper internal issues rather than conflicts between insiders and outsiders.

In his address, Kukathas engaged with the ideas of other speakers at the conference. Kukathas took the position that immigration, economically speaking, lifts all boats — society becomes richer as a whole over time thanks to the skills immigrants bring. These benefits, however, are not distributed equally. This is where Kukathas and Philip Cafaro, from the panel on “Ethical Considerations in Immigration Policy,” diverge. Cafaro argued that low skilled immigration floods the labor market for certain jobs, driving down wages for working-class Americans in the short term. While Cafaro argued that policymakers must prioritize the short-term interests of Americans over immigrants, Kukathas was not willing to make the same tradeoff. Instead, Kukathas focused on the long-term, emphasizing that while immigration control might offer short-term protection for the poorest Americans, it could cost them important economic gains in the future.

Kukathas also responded to Christopher Wellman's argument (at the first panel) for examining immigration from the perspective of national self-determination. Wellman wants a country to be free to decide whether or not to open its borders. Kukathas, however, was skeptical of applying the idea of self-determination to a society. He questioned whether a society can really claim to constitute a “we” that can be used to exclude others. A body, for instance, can claim to determine itself, because it is a united entity and is clearly defined. But when it comes to society as a whole, it is difficult to argue that there is such a thing as a united conscience that constitutes a sufficient ground to exclude outsiders. A society is a complex multifaceted imaginary, and perhaps, as Kukathas claims, cannot be encompassed by a vague notion of a unified we.

To close his address, Kukathas introduced the “open society,” an ideal that nations should strive to attain. Picture a society without borders — a community of free, open states where anyone can come and go as they please. Here, freedom and harmony are guiding principles, and society thrives on diversity and shared progress. Immigration and integration are neither required nor prohibited, but instead, occur freely, without state coercion or prohibition. This is Kukathas’ “open society.” At the heart of this concept is the bold idea that a society cannot be open or free, for anyone, if it enforces restrictions on immigration and integration, just as it cannot be free if it requires immigration (chattel slavery)  or requires integration (imperialism).

During the Q&A section, one audience member asked whether Kukathas anticipated pushback from citizens against moving towards an open society. He acknowledged that there is a lot of fear that comes from the idea that “things are happening too fast.” This broader theme of fear and uncertainty kept coming up throughout the conference, as Kukathas, and many other speakers, called for combatting this narrative, in order to craft  positive immigration reform. As Kukathas suggested in his keynote address, part of this narrative shift could occur by reframing immigration reform as an opportunity for our society to become freer. 

The conference’s Thursday morning panel explored the history and development of U.S. immigration policy, the challenges facing enforcement efforts, and the role of labor in the immigration debate. Panelists Daniel Tichenor, David Leal and David Bier offered insights on the factors that have driven changes in immigration policy, the impacts of ever-increasing executive power, and the lessons we can draw from previous policy failures. The panelists shed important light on the complexities of immigration policy and the central factors of importance shaping the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform. 

In his presentation, Daniel Tichenor, the Philip H. Knight Chair of Political Science at the University of Oregon, compared current and previous immigration policies to demonstrate a rapid and disquieting growth of presidential power over immigration. As he explained, in the past, with help from strange-bedfellow coalitions, Congress could pass immigration legislation. In fact, Congress tended to be decisive on the issue. However, as ideological positions in Congress became polarized, comprehensive immigration reform became difficult to deliver. 

Until the 21st century, modern presidents had enormous amounts of power to place the issue of immigration on the front or back burner, with most choosing the latter and deferring to Congress. President Trump is changing the immigration landscape by asserting prerogative power and invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Tichenor articulated concerns over four-year term horizons and the barriers they pose to legislating enduring solutions on this issue. He fears we might be stuck in an unvirtuous cycle of volatile action and reaction, preventing comprehensive immigration reform.

Moving away from policy and addressing the role of language in the immigration debate, David Leal, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, explored how the use of what he calls bad language has impeded immigration reform. Policymakers, the media, and the public have resorted to using language that leads us into confusing and misleading understandings of immigration challenges and the options for reform in the system. For example, the media will use terms like “skilled” or “unskilled,” preventing people from getting to the economic bottom line of immigration. Drawing from New York Times columnist William Safire, Leal argued that only when we address the fundamental problems of language can we pursue reforms that align with our nation’s immigrant heritage, deliver economic growth, and ensure robust legal pathways to citizenship.

According to Leal, language is also affecting how we view parties. The words “conservative” and “liberal” have lost their original meanings of “reflecting the status quo” and “resisting government encroachment on liberties,” respectively. These terms have morphed into polarized terms that created political dichotomies and make constructive discussion difficult, which in turn makes good policy-making difficult. Leal proposes replacing the terms “secure” or “open” borders with “rational,” allowing us to ask what we want from our immigration reform without using partisan and loaded terms.

Drawing attention towards enforcement and restrictionism, David J. Bier, the director of immigration studies at the CATO Institute, offered an explanation for why chaos and illegality swelled at the southern border early in the Biden administration, and why the Trump administration has turned to increasingly authoritarian measures to restrict immigration. During his first administration, President Trump greatly reduced the number of refugees the US accepted for resettlement and narrowed the interpretation of asylum criteria, making it extraordinarily difficult to gain asylum. During the COVID-19 pandemic, his “Return to Mexico” policy required asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their case was considered.

The initial chaos surrounding immigration emerged as a result of President Trump’s policies, but the Biden administration’s policies exacerbated the problem. According to Bier, President Biden’s failure to reverse President Trump’s harsh restrictionist policies and re-open legal options for entry worsened the sense of desperation and crisis at the border. After flailing over summer 2021, the Biden administration finally expanded legal options for entry and drastically reduced illegal entry. By the end of Biden’s term, every form of legal immigration had increased, as President Biden attempted to defend immigrants as a positive national asset,

Though each panelist concentrated on a different aspect of immigration, all three agreed that Congress’ dysfunctional and short-sighted nature poses insurmountable obstacles to comprehensive immigration reform. However, despite their skepticism, the panelists discussed  how to more effectively address the topic of immigration, identified areas for improvement, and pointed to avenues for reform that could contribute to a less volatile immigration landscape moving forward. 

Caitlin Dickerson has been an investigative reporter and feature writer for The Atlantic since 2021, focusing on immigration-related issues. She won the 2023 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism for “We Need to Take Away Children,” which examines the treatment and effects of the first Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on immigration, which intentionally separated migrant children from their parents.

For the 2025 CSAD Bicentennial Conference on immigration, she presented “Seventy Miles in Hell,” which focused on the experiences of migrants as they traverse through the Darien Gap on their way to the United States. The 70-mile Darien Gap is the only land bridge between South and Central America, stretching across southern Panama and northern Colombia. For centuries, European explorers thought that the Darien Gap was “all but impassable” because of the danger it posed with its extreme weather and terrains: dense rainforests, remoteness, flash floods, and mountains. Despite these dangers, the United Nations estimated that more than 800,000 people would cross the Darien Gap in 2024, a 50% increase over the previous year. To facilitate (and profit) from such large numbers, cartels control the Darien Gap, offering services such as unofficial “guides,” access to Starlink wifi, food, water and transportation — all at high prices.

With vivid photography, Dickerson recounted the journey of a young Venezuelan couple traveling with their two small children. Naming each family member and recounting their hopes and dreams, their reasons for leaving Venezuela and the sacrifices they made to pay for the journey, Dickerson gave humanity to people too often faceless and nameless in stories of “migrants.” Dickerson traveled with the family for several days and told the audience about how the journey pushed them all to their physical limits. After the first couple of hours, the reality of the journey set in. The father, tasked with carrying the small children, took to sprinting up the treacherous cliffs and then collapsing. Dickerson told how this wore him down, and she watched his face turn purple and his limbs shake. At one point, they were too weary to carry all of their bags, so they left them behind, alongside massive piles of discarded belongings that had accumulated along the path. At another point, their child fell completely limp, and Dickerson watched in horror as the family shook him, attempting to coax him awake with lollipops. Other travelers hurried past, as if the family’s exhaustion were contagious.

Dickerson described the journey of a mother named Bé Thị Lê and her son Khánh. Bé was previously a school administrator in Vietnam but lost her job at the beginning of the pandemic. After encountering videos that smugglers posted on YouTube that “seemed doable,” Bé decided to embark on the journey with Khánh, traveling for nearly a month before arriving at the Darien Gap. On the fifth day of their journey through the gap, a flash flood knocked them down and pulled Khánh away from his mother. After failing to find Khánh, a newfound friend persuaded Bé to continue the journey until they could at least alert the authorities. A day and a half later, they staggered into Bajo Chiquito, reporting Khánh’s disappearance to border patrol officers, who used a translation app to record her story. Bé then sought out help in a larger migrant camp near the highway, but she was told there was little that could be done. While Bé eventually successfully sought asylum in the US, she remains obsessed with the idea that Khánh might still be waiting for her to find him. Dickerson ended her keynote with the haunting, pleading messages that Bé continued to send to the journalist months later: “What do you believe about my son?” and “I’m always waiting for news of my baby.”

After she completed her talk, Dickerson fielded questions from the crowd regarding her role as a journalist for The Atlantic and further specifics about her journey. To a question regarding the influence of her work, she responded eloquently, “If people hear my story and say, “I do not care,” I still have done my job, and that is democracy.” She reminded the crowd that democracy does not work without journalism and that her presence at the Darién Gap provided her with the opportunity to tell the story. She described how stories like hers break through bad information with their personal touch. She believes that it should be the objective of journalists to continue to show up in person and have actual conversations that erode the walls that people put up amongst themselves, building back respect for journalism in America.

The Panel on Immigrants, Refugees and the Law was a conversation among three lawyers working in distinct areas of immigration law: Laura Tuell (Jones Day pro bono counsel), Christine Dutko (children’s program supervising attorney, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network), and Melissa Crow (director of litigation, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies), guided by faculty moderator and assistant professor of law and society, and sociology, Christopher Levesque. The panelists discussed the inner workings of the legal immigration process, how their distinct kinds of legal work compliment each other, and the broader legal situation for immigrants, especially since the change in federal administration.

The immigration system can be understood both by its short term change and its long term bureaucratic processes. In the short-term, practicing under the current administration is challenging, because lawyers offer advice based on precedent, but the new administration is breaking with past norms and practices.  As for the bureaucracy, clients’ cases might last two to five years, but sometimes they last up to twenty-five years. As well, impact legislation can take many years, but failures today can lead to successes in the future.

Asked about the accusation that immigration attorneys tell their clients to lie to get asylum, panelists said that they never tell their clients to lie, but they rightly help their clients tell their true personal histories effectively. Most asylum seekers do not understand how the US immigration system works, so lawyers help clients identify the facts in their case that immigration authorities will deem relevant. Good counsel requires real understanding of the client’s experiences and needs, which only emerges by careful, uninterrupted listening. It’s a time-consuming process, but one that builds trust between the client and the attorney. In sum, clients should not be “coached,” as cases are lost if it seems that a client’s words are not their own. Instead, a relationship of listening and understanding makes the process responsible and ethical. 

Panelists also sought to dispel common misconceptions and fears about the immigration process that may be fueled by political ambitions and a general lack of empathy. They emphasized the need to humanize everyone involved in the system and said that an effective attorney develops genuine and productive discussions with both immigrants and immigration enforcement officials.

Because immigration is a matter of administrative law (not criminal law), a person in immigration court does not have a right to a government-funded attorney, so many immigrants depend on pro bono representation, while others rely on poorly funded nonprofit organizations who provide legal support as well as guidance to find other services. Because court decisions have a huge impact on clients’ lives, attorneys face the challenge of managing client expectations. An immigration attorney spends time clarifying for the client how the judicial process works, advising of possible problems, and being clear about the strength or weaknesses of the case. Clients are owed a sense of truth, candor and the tools to make the best possible decision for themselves — even if it means deciding not to pursue a case. 

At the panel’s conclusion, each panelist reflected on how and when immigration became important to them. The panelists shared a common place of inspiration: college. First-year seminars, learning languages and navigating different cultures fostered a sense of ambition and empathy that, for each panelist, culminated in law school. They each shared their admiration and respect that they have for immigrants, who restart their lives in wholly new countries, and their desire to address faults in the immigration system at its root. 

In the question and answer section of the panel, the panelists answered a wide array of questions ranging from effectiveness of the courts to what motivated them to continue this demanding work. Asked about the effectiveness of international law on immigration matters, one panelist noted that while international law is difficult to enforce, it provides a standard metric by which every country can be held accountable. Human rights violations can damage a country's reputation. 

Asked about the current administration's goals for deportation, one speaker said it is up to the courts to stand, effective and apolitical, holding the executive accountable to the law in the face of its various threats to the legal profession. Another panelist argued that the current administration does not have the capacity or resources to deport as many immigrants as it hopes.

The Center for the Study of American Democracy’s (CSAD) two-day conference in 2025 concluded by gathering the conference themes of immigration ethics, law, and policy and centering them in Ohio. The panelists included Gina Pérez of Oberlin College, Michele Leiby of the College of Wooster, and Angela Plummer of the Community Refugee and Immigration Services, Columbus (CRIS). 

Gina Pérez presented her research on faith-based responses to immigration. Pérez shared the details of an ICE workplace raid at Corso's Flower and Garden Center in Sandusky, Ohio, in 2018, in which more than 140 people were detained. The raid caused economic pain due to the sudden arrest of breadwinners, and an atmosphere of suspicion engulfed the community. In response to raids like these, faith-based groups have risen to the challenge. In their view, the crackdown on immigrant communities is a moral crisis that they seek to address. Catholic and Evangelical communities alike fight these legal battles, provide resettlement services, and preach solidarity regardless of immigration status. According to Pérez, opposition to immigration in Ohio and the religious activism that counters it bespeaks a countrywide trend. There are two sides of the United States — one that marginalizes the vulnerable and another that shows and acts in love. 

Following Pérez, Michele Leiby shared findings from her book project “Mirrored Struggles.” The project, conducted in 2018 with a research team that included two Kenyon students and CSAD associate director, Nancy Powers, involved interviewing several hundred immigrants in small towns and rural areas of Ohio. They were asked to describe their motivations for migration and their experience traveling to and living in the United States. Of those Leiby’s team interviewed, 80% had children, but half of these parents were separated from at least one of their children. Further, 72% of interviewees were married, but 28% of those had spouses who live transnationally. Leiby suggested that these data point to a trend of family separation. When asked about migration motivations, the interviewees usually provided multiple, interconnected reasons. The most common reasons were economic marginalization followed by physical violence, social mobility, and family reunification. The study found significant variation in immigration motivations depending on country of origin and date of migration. Leiby noted that, despite being an often invisible group, immigrants are also highly policed.  

Angela Plummer, executive director of an immigration services non-profit, concluded the panel by discussing her organization’s work in resettling people whom the government has accepted as refugees for settlement in the U.S.  Plummer’s organization, CRIS, meets refugees at the Columbus airport and accompanies them to their new homes. Volunteers take the families grocery shopping and help them to enroll their children in school  and learn English. CRIS’ team of over 100 professionals help their clients to maintain their legal immigration status. A large portion of Plummer’s talk focused on President Trump’s Stop-Work Order, which ordered that legal aid to unaccompanied minors cease. The order came through just as CRIS had welcomed 244 immigrants to Columbus. 

In sum, the work of the three panelists demonstrates that while immigration is often understood to affect southern border states, the matter is also highly relevant in Ohio. All three panelists emphasized the importance of community, pointing to community organizations like CRIS along with faith-based groups working to make the states’ new arrivals feel welcome.