Annotated version of the White House’s National Security Strategy of December 5:

The Era of Mass Migration Is Over – Who a country admits into its borders—in what numbers and from where—will inevitably define the future of that nation. Any country that considers itself sovereign has the right and duty to define its future.

[This statement, though tinged with implicit racism (“from where”), sort of aligns with the Jordan Commission’s final report issued in the 1990s: “Properly-regulated immigration and immigrant policy serves the national interest by ensuring the entry of those who will contribute most to our society and helping lawful newcomers adjust to life in the United States. It must give due consideration to shifting economic realities.”]

Throughout history, sovereign nations prohibited uncontrolled migration and granted citizenship only rarely to foreigners, who also had to meet demanding criteria.

[“Only rarely to foreigners” conflicts sharply with most of  American history. Abraham Lincoln, for example, welcomed immigrants from non-English sources.  The statement invites comparison with the extremely restrictive immigration policy 1924 – 1965.]

The West’s experience over the past decades vindicates this enduring wisdom. In countries throughout the world, mass migration has strained domestic resources, increased violence and other crime, weakened social cohesion, distorted labor markets, and undermined national security.

[“Weakened social cohesion” –Polls and research by Robert Putnam show that diversity, such as ethnic, reduces trust and a sense of belonging.]

The era of mass migration must end.

[This is ambiguous—does mass migration mean from unfavored countries, or all migration, or something else? If mass migration means large numbers from Latin America, that era – from the 1990s through the Biden Administration – is over.]

Border security is the primary element of national security. We must protect our country from invasion, not just from unchecked migration but from cross-border threats such as terrorism, drugs, espionage, and human trafficking.

[There is no evidence that immigration has brought terrorism, drugs or espionage. This passage smacks of theatrical hypervigilance associated with a myth of purity of the community of citizens. Madison Grant, in his influential The Passing of the Great Race (1916),  framed immigration as a threat to racial purity: “Race feeling may be called prejudice by those whose careers are cramped by it but it is a natural antipathy which serves to maintain the purity of type.”]

A border controlled by the will of the American people as implemented by their government is fundamental to the survival of the United States as a sovereign republic.

[The border takes on a mythic role as some kind of protective armor.]

In Escobar Molina v. DHS (December 2), a federal district court enjoined DHS and ICE from conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests — including sweeps and arresting those standing in Home Depot parking lots — in Washington, D.C. that do not comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). That provision allows a warrantless civil arrest only when an officer has probable cause both that a person is in the U.S. unlawfully and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

After President Trump’s August 11, 2025 “crime emergency” declaration, federal officers launched mass immigration sweeps. An AP-based analysis in the record showed 943 immigration arrests in D.C. between August 7 and September 9, 2025, more than 40% of all arrests in that period.  Officers in plain clothes and unmarked cars often seized people without warrants, without confirming identity, and without asking anything about escape risk.

The government defended this by claiming that civil immigration arrests could be made on “reasonable suspicion,” that its officers were in practice applying a probable-cause standard anyway, and that the presidential emergency and DHS directives justified rapid, sweeping enforcement.  The court rejected all of this, holding that no internal policy or emergency order can override the explicit probable-cause and escape-risk requirements Congress wrote into the INA.

The actual wording in the INA:

“(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

…

(2) to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;”

Numerous court decisions dating back to 1975 have said that “reason to believe” means probable cause.

Aaron Reichlin Melnick has posted today’s memorandum (12/2/25) from USCIS calling for a suspension of dealing with all asylum applications and all “benefit applications”. The memorandum refers to the June 6 2025 “Presidential Action” which lists 19 counttries of concern. The suspension applies to all 19 countries.

The memoradum does not say that prior approvals are to be reviewed — as President Trump says he wants done. Since Trump is trying the subject the entire foreign-born population to review and possible expulsation, it’s woth spending a moment to parse the law.

“Benefit applications” is a formal term which includes all applications that USCIS adjudicates, including green card and citizenship applications.

As noted a few days ago, immigration law prohibits nationality from using used in specific immigration decisions: “No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” The prohibition applies only to “immigrant visas” and not to green cards, citizenship and certain other applications. The focus on immigrant visas (family, employment, humanitarian, diversity) appears to be due to the removal in 1965 of nationality quotas. It would appear that special immigrant visas issues to Iraqis and Afghan are covered by the prohibition. Some 175,000 such visas have been issued.

If the White House wants to achieve its goal of one million deportations per year, it has to streamline the currently bogged down system of interior arrests through deportation of non-criminals. Here in a nutshell is why ICE -driven deportations are so low – at an average rate of about 18 per ICE enforcement and deportation staff person (7,700).

The Trump administration inherited an interior arrest and deportation process, run by ICE, which was very bogged down, and the immigration courts, seriously under-staffed.  (Customs and Border Patrol generally cover arrests and deportation within 100 miles of the border and can use expedited removals).

Interior immigration enforcement under the aegis of ICE shrank over the past fifteen years, while the overall deportation machinery shifted to the border. ICE once removed an average of 155,000 people per year from inside the United States during 2009–2016, but that number fell to 81,000 in 2017–2020 and then dropped again to about 38,000 annually from 2021–2024.

The difficulties start with the arrest. Most ICE arrests end up in Section 240 immigration-court proceedings because the vast majority of people taken into custody have been in the United States for more than two years, have ties here, or assert some form of protection claim, which legally bars the government from using expedited removal.

Once someone is placed into the 240 track, they receive the full due-process process: notices, master calendar hearings, evidence submissions, and often an asylum or other relief claim that must be adjudicated by an immigration judge. This pushes them into the enormous immigration-court backlog, which by late 2024 had swollen to roughly 3.6 million cases. As a result, a newly-filed case often waits years before a merits hearing, and the person typically lives in the community during that time unless ICE chooses to detain them, assuming beds are available.

The administration is recruiting judges explicitly to increase deportation. Even when a judge ultimately issues a removal order, carrying it out is slow and often unsuccessful. Today roughly 1.5 million people have outstanding removal orders that have not been executed. ICE must physically locate the person, overcome limited detention capacity, and secure cooperation from the destination country. Many countries delay or refuse travel documents, making deportation impossible in practice. China, Cuba, India, and Venezuela routinely refuse or delay accepting returnees.

 

Go here and here.