It may well happen that Republican senators will try to win Trump over to the concept of an immigration reform bill, which would be the third historic act in 100 years (1924 and 1965).  Trump would have to give up his campaign to remove millions of unauthorized persons – who would per such a bill be normalized into some form of legal status – in exchange for sweeping overhaul of many parts of our elephantine mess of immigration law.

Senator Cotton is probably the most articulate Republican senator with regard to a possible major reform in immigration. Here is a column he wrote for the NY Times in 2016.

In 2017 Cotton introduced the RAISE Act. Here is a section by section analysis.

Reducing Overall Immigration: Cut legal immigration by half, from approximately 1 million to around 500,000 annually. This reduction is intended to alleviate what Cotton describes as the negative economic impact of high immigration levels on American workers’ wages and job opportunities.

Points-Based Immigration System: A points-based system for employment-based visas, where immigrants would be evaluated based on criteria such as education level, English proficiency, and work experience. This system is designed to prioritize highly skilled individuals who can contribute effectively to the U.S. economy. Canada and Australia use a points based system.  There is wide popular support for skilled immigration.  the system is designed for permanent immigration.

By implication, temporary work visas for seasonal agricultural workers (H-2A) are apparently imperiled.

Family Sponsorship Limitations: The legislation seeks to limit family-sponsored immigration strictly to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This would eliminate the ability of citizens to sponsor adult children and siblings. for many decades the large majority of immigrants has come through family unification. This was baked into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act).

End the Diversity Visa Lottery: The RAISE Act proposes to abolish the Diversity Visa Lottery, which Cotton argues does not serve the economic interests of the United States.

Cap refugee admissions to 50,000. The Obama and Biden administrations targeted 100,000 to 125,000. The first Trump administration sought in effect to destroy this program.

End birthright citizenship. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act of 2024 would deny citizenship to persons born in the United States of “alien parents” who are unlawfully present in the United States.  This ban will join two pre-existing ones: parents are in the U.S. for diplomatic purposes or engaged in hostile occupation.

 

I have written here a brief analysis of Trump’s actions on immigration in the two weeks since inauguration. I summarize the historical context of immigration in the United States and address his border policy, mass deportation, and destruction of the humanitarian programs.

The American Immigration Council writes that “In 1996, Congress passed a law giving the federal government the power to declare an emergency relating to a “mass influx” of migrants. When this emergency provision is enacted, the government can both disburse funding to states and localities dealing with the “influx” and delegate authority to local law enforcement agents in those areas to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. In other words, local police officers around the country could be enabled under this law to carry out the functions of a federal immigration officer.

On January 23, 2025, the law was invoked for the first time. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine C. Huffman declared a “mass influx” affecting the entire United States for at least 60 days, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to deputize local law enforcement to conduct immigration enforcement in all 50 states.”

Further:

The majority of arrests by ICE involve cooperation with local police forces. This makes building on this cooperation a potentially powerful tool for arresting persons on the basis of being unauthorized to be in the U.S.

A key distinction exists between the “Mass Influx” provision (103(a)(10)) and the better-known 287(g) program. The 287(g) program, which has been used for years, allows local law enforcement to cooperate in immigration enforcement but mandates formal training and does not offer significant financial compensation. In contrast, the 103(a)(10) provision provides federal funding to local agencies, making it a more attractive option for law enforcement agencies seeking additional resources.

It needs to be noted that pretty much any person who has been in the U.S. for at least two years cannot be subject to “expedited removal” but rather has access to immigration court review, and the immigration courts are backed up for years. DHS will undoubtedly try to get around this.

And the decision to invoke this law raises several concerns. The involvement of local police in immigration enforcement has historically resulted in increased racial profiling, particularly against Latino communities, including U.S. citizens. Additionally, using local law enforcement for immigration enforcement may divert resources away from public safety efforts, including investigations of violent crimes. Immigrant communities may also become less likely to report crimes due to fear of deportation, undermining overall public safety.

 

Austin Kocher very helpfully provides insights into the Biden era pattern of ICE enforcement action by the United States, to serve as a baseline for the Trump administration.

Arrests: During FY 2024 there were on daily average of 310 ICE arrests and daily average of 409 ICE detainers served. A detainer is a request by ICE to state or local law enforcement to detain or otherwise keep ICE informed of a person who has been arrested in kept in custody.  (These figures show how much ICE depends on state and local law enforcement.)

Trump is implicitly promising that these numbers will skyrocket.

In detention: as of mid-January: 40,000.  Trump is promising that this number will skyrocket. Out of detention but monitored (mainly by technology) as of mid-January, 188,000. On its face, Trump’s executive orders and rhetoric would require all of these persons to be detained since they are per Trump criminals.

ACTION SO FAR; it is unrealistic to expect that arrest and detention numbers will have grown in the first week of the administration’s lifetime. Btu shall we expect perhaps 1,000 arrests a day by the end of February?

Kocher notes, “There simply are not enough immigrants in the country with criminal convictions to enable the Trump admin to massively grow detention and deportation alone. They will have to go after a growing number of immigrants with no criminal histories.”

Deportations: Kocher does not address deportations. In FY 2024, there were 270,000 deportations, or about 700 per day. During Trump 1, there were about 1.5 million deportations or about 1,000 a day.

Here is a mid 2024 analysis of deportation trends. This analysis raises an important point, which is that most removals are voluntary and not in the custody of law enforcement.  

 

On January 20, Trump terminated the humanitarian parole program for at least the so-called CHNV countries. I am unable now to determine if similar programs for Ukrainians and Afghans have also been cancelled. This will almost certainly lead to hundreds of thousands of program beneficiaries being forced to leave the United States when their one or two-year stay is over.

This revocation of the program was 100% predictable. It is given little national media exposure because the media is fixated on Trump’s largely theatrical actions relating to the Mexican border (such as sending in elite troups to serve not to repel an invading forces but as construction workers).

On January 23, according to Welcome US, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice directing immigration officials to review cases of individuals who are currently in the United States on humanitarian parole to determine whether to terminate their parole status and begin the process of removing them from the United States back to their home country.

Humanitarian parole was transformed by the Biden administration from a largely small scale program to much larger one, affecting hundreds of thousands of persons. it also introduced the requirement for financial sponsorships – a semi-privatization of humanitarian entry, because you needed a sponsor within the U.S. to be admitted.

Here is my overview of the Biden humanitarian parole programs…..and a summary of the National Immigration Forum’s in depth briefing on the program (go here for the entire document):

Humanitarian parole is a discretionary tool under the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows certain individuals to enter and temporarily stay in the U.S. without a visa. It’s granted for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, providing temporary lawful presence and protection from deportation. It’s temporary and doesn’t confer permanent status or a path to citizenship. It’s used in various scenarios, including medical treatment, family emergencies, and large-scale humanitarian crises. Parolees undergo vetting and background checks. It has been used in major operations like the evacuation from Vietnam in 1975 and Afghanistan in 2021. Parole does not lead to permanent status and limits access to some public benefits.

The U.S. is deploying some of its most valuable fast response troops to serve as construction workers.

According to the Wall Street Journal, The Pentagon on Friday readied more than 5,000 troops from high-profile warfighting units to deploy to the southwestern U.S., moving to fulfill President Trump’s order to escalate the military role along the border.

Armed infantry and support troops from the 82nd Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division…could be at the border within days, one defense official said

The 82nd and 10th Mountain divisions are among the Pentagon’s most combat-ready forces, reflecting Trump’s directive that the Pentagon “prioritize the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.”

This deployment fits into the Trump narrative about an invasion which rises to the level of a national emergency (go here and here for the White House’s announcements).

U.S. troops will construct additional temporary and permanent physical barriers for additional security to curtail illegal border crossings and illicit trafficking, Pentagon officials said. Perhaps the military will provide planes to deport more persons, but I have no insight into whether more flights are needed now.

 

 

The first Trump administration sought to destroy the refugee system. it severely cut back on refugee administratons which caused severe disruption to the network of non-profit organizations (largely faith-based) to survive.  below is the American Immigration Council’s analysis of measures the new administration has taken (date of report January 22):

Key policy changes

• Suspending arrivals of refugees to the United States indefinitely as of January 27, 2025. (“Realigning the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program”)

• Directing the federal government to design a new refugee process that selects only refugees who will be able to “assimilate into the United States,” and gives states and localities more say in allowing refugees to settle in their areas. (“Realigning the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program”)

• Instructing officials to create a list of countries that are alleged to share insufficient information with the U.S. for vetting purposes, laying the groundwork for a new travel ban. (“Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists”)

What’s already happened

• While the text of the executive actions gives January 27 as the date for the suspension of the refugee program, the State Department sent a memo to resettlement agencies on January 21 instructing them to cancel all travel for incoming refugees—essentially suspending the program six days early.

What happens next

• U.S. refugee admissions—with potential case-by-case exceptions—will be halted until the U.S. government is satisfied a better program has been created. The Homeland Security Secretary is responsible for providing reports every 90 days on the progress of such a program.

• A list of countries that share “insufficient” information with the U.S. will be provided to the president within 60 days, at which time travel and immigration bans may be issued against anyone from those countries.

• Within 30 days, the Secretary of State is directed to provide recommendations to limit visa programs to exclude foreign nationals who do not support specific ideological values.