Trump’s first two weeks: immigration

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.

“Mass influx” declaration on immigration law enforcement

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.

 

Baseline on arrests, detention and removals

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.  

 

Humanitarian parole under attack by Trump

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.

Federal troops at the border: what for?

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.

 

 

Trump directives on refugees

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.

 

 

The Trump White House: Make America Safe Again

The Trump administration addressed immigration in the inauguration speech and on its website in the statement called Make America Safe Again. Here are some observations to a few parts of the statement and to his speech:

Ending Biden’s catch and release policies, reinstating Remain in Mexico, building the wall, ending asylum for illegal border crossers, cracking down on criminal sanctuaries, and enhancing vetting and screening of aliens.”  Comment: This is a catch-all statement which, in my opinion, resets immigration policy to the first Trump administration.

Another statement refers to deportation focusing on “record boarder crossings of criminal aliens under the prior administration.” Comment: This is an example of Trump’s use of the word criminal to refer to a broad swathe of foreign-born persons without any evidence of actual past or present criminal activity. In his inauguration speech he said that there were people coming from mental hospitals and prisons across the border. Trump and his associates have been cagey in the last month about the scope of their deportation program. Perhaps to avoid embarrassment of failure in expelling a million or more persons, they have referred often to deporting criminals.

Refugees: “The president is suspending refugee resettlement, after communities were forced to house large and unsustainable populations of migrants, straining community safety and resources.”  Comment:  We may see a return to a purposeful dismantling of the refugee program, which drove annual refugee entries from the 80,000 – 100,000 level to under 20,000.

The way to significantly reduce refugee resettlement is to reduce the number of refugees and other temporary visa holders coming into the country. Neither the inauguration speech nor this statement address how the administration we’ll cut back on refugee migration and address the large number of humanitarian parole and temporary protected status persons in the country now.

Birthright citizenship: The statement does not address birthright citizenship, but Trump did in the inauguration speech. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Children not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. applies to children born to foreign diplomats who are protected by sovereign immunity.

It also applies to children of an invading force. While not explicitly stated in the Constitution, legal interpretations suggest that children born to members of a hostile occupying force would not be granted citizenship, because an invading force is deemed not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

No mention of immigration legislation: competely missing from the speech and the statement.

 

Plan for large scale ICE raid in Chicago on January 21

The George W Bush administration launched a series of large raids. This turned out badly in terms of public response and the administration stopped them. I have collected information on these and subsequent raids here.

Even the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board does not want these kinds of raids.

The Wall Street Journal article: The raid is expected to begin on Tuesday morning, a day after Trump is inaugurated, and will last all week, the people said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will send between 100 and 200 officers to carry out the operation. The Trump team intends to target immigrants in the country illegally with criminal backgrounds—many of whose offenses, like driving violations, made them too minor for the Biden administration to pursue. But, the people cautioned, if anyone else in the country illegally is present during an arrest, they will be taken, too…..

The transition team had been contemplating cities to target in a day-one operation as a way of making an example of so-called sanctuary cities, which adopt policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. They settled on Chicago both because of the large number of immigrants who could be possible targets and because of the Trump team’s high-profile feud with the city’s Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson…..

The Chicago Police Department referred any questions about pending immigration enforcement actions to the federal government.  CPD, in a statement, cited Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, under which the department “does not document immigration status”—or share information with federal immigration authorities. “We will not intervene or interfere with any other government agencies performing their duties,” it added.

Laken Riley Act – the controversional provision

The Laken Riley Act, passed by the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate, is an act that does little to change immigration law. But there are two expansions of the existing law.  One, the Homeland Security “shall” [i.e. must] detain an unauthorized person in the event they are “charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.”  That is, they cannot be released pending further legal action, but must be detained, even for shoplifting.

Two, the law grants a state Attorney General standing to file suits to enforce certain provisions of existing law if an unauthorized person within that state commits a “harm” as defined by law. A state Attorney General can get a court to require Homeland Security to apply a power already in place, which is to deny the issuance of all visas to a that person’s country if that country tends not to accept their citizens subject to deportation. At this time, these countries include China, India, Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Russia and Somalia.  For example, if an unauthorized person in Texas who is a citizen of Ethiopia falls within the scope of this law, the Attorney General of Texas can through a court stop all visa issuance for persons from Ethiopia.

The second of these provisions is what is controversial.

 

 

Bernie Sanders on H-1B

Senator Bernie Sanders issued a statement on January 3, “We need major reforms in the H-1B program.” The full statement is here.

Sanders argues that the H-1B visa program is exploited by corporations to replace well-paid American jobs with low-wage foreign labor. He says, “We must utilize this program as a very short-term and temporary approach“ to meeting workforce needs.  He advocates for reforms like raising minimum wages for guest workers and enabling them to switch jobs.

Sanders statement reflects persistent blinkered political thinking about immigration, and exposes the vulnerability of the Democratic Party to a major attack from Republicans. For one, he implicitly buys into the idea that for the most part bringing a worker in on a temporary basis means an American loses a job. I doubt he would say that when addressing the hundreds of thousands of temporary farm workers who come in from Latin America.

Further, he does what virtually every politician does when addressing immigration, which is to think in the extremely short term with no consideration of intermediate, much less long term, workforce needs.   No national Democratic politician, from what I read has come forward with a proposal on how to draw upon the huge talent pool in the world to complement, not replace, American workers.

Republican senators are, I believe, ready to come forward with a comprehensive immigration bill that would feature skilled labor, and defend this approach using a intermediate and long term vision of how to maintain a highly productive workforce. I have zero factual knowledge that such a bill is in the works. I am interested in how Sanders would respond to such a proposal.