Mark Krikorian is executive director of The Center for Immigration Studies and a long-time advocate of restrictive immigration policy.  Here are excerpts from his August 5 interview with the American Conservative Magazine:

Border control and deportations

It’s only been six months, so in that context, [deportation] very successful. The border is dramatically better off than it was in the past. I don’t want to say it’s solved or it’s closed, because there’s always going to be people trying to come across the border. In fact, now they’re trying to come up the coast and then cut inland to avoid the Border Patrol. So they’re always going to be some cat and mouse. But the difference is night and day.

Trump is following through on a whole variety of policies. Not just restarting construction on the wall—which is important, but it’s just one piece of what you need to do. But they’ve come up with a policy that reclassifies all federal lands along the border as military installations.

Most importantly, they’re just not letting people go anymore. That’s the key thing. If you have a pretty good expectation of being released into the country, who cares what color piece of paper they give you?

There’s another challenge in the new illegal immigration area, and that is visa overstays….That’s going to take longer to deal with. They understand it’s a problem, they’re dealing with it, but I still give them a grade of “incomplete” on this, just because it’s a longer-term project.

I expect now you’re going to see way more people detained. If you arrest people, it doesn’t matter if you have nowhere to hold them, because you have to hold them to do the paperwork to deport them. Now they’re going to be able to arrest more people because they can hold more people and hopefully deport more people. So I think you’re going to see a significant increase in both arrests and deportations in the next six months.

So generally, on the illegal immigration thing, I’m pretty bullish. They’ve done a good job. I don’t really have anything I could point out to complain about, other than one little warning sign, which is the president’s talk about “well, maybe we’ll let some farm workers stay”—that kind of stuff. Self-deportation is a key part of what they want to achieve, because you can’t arrest all the illegal aliens. You want to arrest a lot of them and convince a whole lot of others to pack up and go home before they get arrested. So that is the one potential problem. But they haven’t really done anything in that regard yet, so I would probably make their grade an A instead of an A+ because of that.

Cutting back legal immigration

[Trump is] a transitional figure is that the whole next—well, I won’t say the whole, but much of the next cohort of Republican leaders—are real restrictionists. The vice president, DeSantis, Senator Hawley, Senator Cotton, Senator Schmitt, these people actually want legal immigration reduced, not just enforcing the border.

One thing that really encourages me about the new Republican take on immigration is that the vice president has been out front saying that the H-1B program is a total scam…. Congress is just not in a position to pass any immigration bill—but H-1Bs in particular are untouchable, because so many of the Democrats are also beholden to the tech donors.

My top priority is not zero legal immigration, but zero-based budgeting for immigration. A continental nation with a third of a billion people, one that invented modernity, doesn’t actually need any immigration, but there are going to be certain categories of people who have such a compelling case to be let in, that we should let them in anyway.

The deployment of the National Guard, U.S. Army, and other federal law enforcement entities into Washington, D.C., in August 2025 evokes historical instances of military and military-like interventions in urban areas. In this case, the deployment aims to arrest unauthorized persons and maintain a visible presence for tourists and media. The administration links mass deportation to restoring law and order, despite no evidence of deaths, injuries or property damage. I’ve included below snapshots of past deployments that addressed actual law and order breakdowns.

The D.C. deployment escalates the administration’s earlier intervention in Los Angeles, based on similar claims of a law-and-order breakdown. In both instances, arrests have been made without clear reasonable cause. Publicized displays of force, such as the operation in Los Angeles’ MacArthur Park on July 7, and the National Mall. appear to serve no practical legal purpose.

Fox News reported late August 22 that President Trump aims to broaden the DC operation to other states, and that 19 states will deploy their national guard.  In the Oval Office, Trump said, “I think Chicago will be our next. And then we’ll help with New York,” Trump said.

Timeline of current deployment (August 11–August 22, 2025)

August 11: President Trump announces at a White House press conference the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing it under Attorney General Pam Bondi’s oversight. He orders the deployment of approximately 800 D.C. National Guard troops to combat claimed “out-of-control” crime, including gangs and homelessness. Troops are placed on Title 32 orders, enabling law enforcement duties under presidential command. FBI agents and U.S. Army troops are also deployed.

August 12: D.C. National Guard troops begin deploying to the streets, with a visible presence near the Washington Monument. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirms the mobilization, stating troops “will be strong and tough.”

August 14: Troops patrol tourist-frequented areas such as Union Station and the National Mall.

August 16–21: Six Republican-led states announce additional deployments at the Pentagon’s request, contributing to a total force of nearly 2,000. Defense Secretary Hegseth orders troops to begin carrying firearms.

August 21: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announces that 630 people have been arrested in Washington, D.C., with just under half identified as undocumented immigrants, according to the White House (reported by ABC7). Videos show masked agents in bulletproof vests marked only with “police” on the back, detaining individuals without identifying themselves or explaining the reasons for stops, searches, or arrests. Detainees, many non-English speakers, are seen being pulled from cars, bicycles, or scooters and tackled to the ground.

August 22: National Guard troops are authorized to carry service-issue weapons starting this weekend, amid ongoing patrols. The visible presence of troops at landmarks like the National Mall continues to stir fear and confusion among residents.

Historical deployments related to law-and-order breakdowns

Great Chicago Fire (1871): The fire began on October 8, 1871, and raged until October 10, killing approximately 300 people and leaving about 100,000 residents homeless. Law and order were severely compromised due to widespread chaos, with looting and disorganization overwhelming the city’s police and fire departments. Mayor Roswell B. Mason declared martial law on October 9 and requested federal assistance. President Grant deployed several companies of U.S. Army infantry and artillery. Martial law was lifted after about two weeks.

Detroit Riot (1967): The riot began on July 23, 1967, after Detroit police raided an unlicensed after-hours bar, sparking five days of violence rooted in grievances over racism, unemployment, and police misconduct. The unrest involved 43 deaths and 1,189 injuries. Michigan Governor George Romney deployed 8,000 National Guard troops. President Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act on July 24, sending approximately 4,700 federal paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions.

Washington, D.C. Riot (1968): Following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, riots erupted across over 100 U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C. Law and order collapsed amid looting, arson, and clashes, resulting in 12 deaths and 1,097 injuries. Local police were outnumbered, and the D.C. National Guard (approximately 1,750 troops) was insufficient. President Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying 13,600 federal troops, including Marines and Army units for a short while.

Los Angeles Riots (1992): The riots began on April 29, 1992, after the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers in the beating of Rodney King. 63 people were killed, 2,383 injured, and widespread looting, arson, and gunfire overwhelmed local police. California Governor Pete Wilson deployed 10,000 National Guard troops. President Bush invoked the Insurrection Act on May 1, federalizing the Guard and sending 4,000 federal troops (Army and Marines).

“I dropped by to visit Aunt June today. The caregiver did not come in today and the fridge was empty. I went to get some produce at the farmstand, but it was closed— in the middle of summer! So I swung by the cafe to get her dinner, but I had to wait for an hour because they only had one cook. How weird. Then on my way home I saw that the hedges along the street still haven’t been trimmed.  Have you noticed?”

“I have.”

“I wonder what’s going on.”

“It will come to you.”

Since the 1990s, ICE and Border Patrol officers were constrained by administrations from entering certain “safe zone” settings. The guidelines applied to healthcare settings, schools, places of worship and even public demonstrations. (The guidelines did not formally bar entrance.) On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration removed these constraints. What does the public think about this?

A survey conducted by Hart Research, conducted among 802 registered voters in early July and released August 7, finds that a modest majority of voting Americans disapprove of immigration enforcement in some of these settings.  The fact that a sizable minority supports the Administration is sobering. It suggests that public opinion will not, at least for now, be a deterrent to ICE entering safe zones (except for perhaps houses of worship). A well publicized arrest in one of these settings may set off a public outcry — or may not.

Regarding entering healthcare settings, 56% of voters oppose the Trump administration policy, 38% approve. Opposition is predictably strongest among Democrats (78% disapprove). But opposition is weaker among Hispanic (63% disapprove)

The respondents also disapprove of ICE action in schools (60% to 33%) and houses of worship (67% to 27%).  By comparison, a majority accepts enforcement in workplaces (51%) and in immigrants’ homes (60%).

Notably, Republicans support ICE access to safe zones. Republican voters back enforcement in healthcare facilities (67% v 26%).  Hart Research conducted the survey for the National Immigration Law Center, which did not disclose findings by  segments of voters (such as party affiliation) for non-healthcare settings.

Strikingly, the survey reported that 68% believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay if they meet certain requirements, Only 29% now say immigrants should not be allowed to remain. Hart Research says that support for undocumented persons has increased – which I discussed recently here regarding a Gallup poll done in June.

Bryan Finucane of Just Security writes that released notes between the U.S. and El Salvador, two dated immediately before the March 15, 2025 transport Abrego Garcia and some 300 Venezuelans, smacks of  “legal lipstick,” “legal fig leaf,” a deal crafted to effect U.S. control over the disposition of the deportees while on paper denying it.

“The underlying arrangement is described in a pair of notes dated March 13 and March 14—an outgoing U.S. note and the incoming Salvadoran note respectively. A subsequent U.S. diplomatic note dated March 31 was also released. Consistent with my prior assessment, the notes constitute a legally non-binding arrangement rather than a legally binding agreement having the status of a treaty under international law. The documents eschew language typically reserved for binding instruments such as “agree” in favor of formulations commonly used for non-binding arrangements such as “understands” and “requests.” This conclusion on the legal status of the diplomatic notes is reinforced by the fact that the State Department released them explicitly pursuant to 1 USC 112b(b)(1), a provision of the amended Case-Zablocki Act for “qualifying non-binding instruments.”

“The lack of detail on these critical elements of the arrangements—the U.S. quid for the Salvadoran quo—strengthens the impression that these diplomatic notes memorialize only part of the deal between the United States and El Salvador.”

“Taken together, these diplomatic notes appear to represent an attempt by State Department lawyers to establish a legal fig leaf after the fact for U.S. government policies and actions they were unable or unwilling to stop or substantially influence at the front end. The humane treatment assurances and reminder contained within these documents appear intended to counter claims that the United States is violating the prohibition on transfer to torture as well as allegations that individual U.S. officials aided and abetted torture (actions that could expose them to legal jeopardy overseas).”

Six months into the Trump Administration and we are seeing the emergence of proposals for legislative reforms of immigration laws.  A reference point for A Republican reform package is Senator Cotton’s 2017 RAISE Act.

The Center for American Progress, a self-described progressive organization, proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. immigration system. (At this time, view this proposal against Cotton’s RAISE Act.)  Key legislative provisions include: modernizing border infrastructure and surveillance; reforming asylum to speed up decisions and bar misuse; expanding legal immigration and green card availability; introducing a points-based visa system; and creating an earned path to citizenship for longtime undocumented residents. The plan also urges Congress to investigate executive overreach in immigration enforcement and to fully fund a fair, efficient legal immigration system that reflects American values and economic needs.

I note three recommendations:

Major overhaul of asylum system, which would restrict who is eligible to apply for asylum and speed up the process of review. “The asylum system has, over time, been abused by human smuggling networks.7 It has become a backdoor way for people to come to the United States and work without valid asylum claims while it takes far too long to render decisions.8 At the same time, Americans must not abandon people with true asylum claims to face death or torture because of who they are or what they believe. Our asylum laws must be modernized, and the system appropriately resourced, so final decisions are rendered in weeks—not years.”

A points based system: “Supplement the existing family-and employment-based system with a new, targeted points-based system driven directly by the labor demands of the U.S. economy. Allocate additional visas based on a regularly updated Department of Labor assessment of shortage occupations and high demand occupations. Other countries, such as Australia and Canada, regularly assess their labor markets and allow applicants to qualify using a points-based system. Award points to applicants according to key characteristics including work experience, occupation, entrepreneurship experience, English language proficiency, and family ties in the United States with a priority given to individuals with a confirmed job offer in the United States. Create a program for states and cities to identify worker shortages in their communities and directly petition for more labor visas.”

Normalization for unauthorized persons: “Establish a secure, fair, workable pathway for longtime undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than ten years—more than five years for Dreamers—to obtain lawful permanent residence, followed by eligibility to receive citizenship in the future. Bar eligibility for anyone who has committed a serious crime or is a security threat in order to ensure public safety. To qualify for an earned pathway to citizenship, undocumented immigrants must: Pass a thorough criminal and national security background check. Demonstrate continuous presence in the country. Prove economic self-sufficiency. Pay any taxes owed. Pay a fine.”

On January 21 the DOJ issued a directive establishing its policy of arrest and deportation of unauthorized persons. It starts off by focusing on behavior of Latin American gangs (“cartels”) but extends to all unauthorized persons. I want here to focus on the administration’s goal to coerce state and local governments to participate. The Immigration Legal Resource Center analyzed the document: “MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES,FROM: THE ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. January 21, 2025.SUBJECT: Interim Policy Changes Regarding Charging, Sentencing, and Immigration Enforcement.” (Go here for this memo, go here for another memo).

The ILRC comments, “The directive orders federal prosecutors to investigate and prosecute state and local actors who may be carrying out sanctuary policies or otherwise not agreeing to assist with immigration enforcement. Prosecutors who decline such cases will be required to document their reasons.”

Language in the memo: Assertion that state and local jurisdictions most comply: The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives. Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests pursuant to, for example, the President’s extensive Article II authority with respect to foreign affairs and national security, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Alien Enemies Act. The U.S. Attorney’s Offices and litigating components of the Department of Justice shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution, including for obstructing federal functions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violations of other statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324,1373.

Commentary by ILRC: This section threatens sanctuary jurisdictions with various legal actions. It makes some sweeping claims that misstate the law, such as the first sentence which erroneously claims that state and local actors have to comply with immigration enforcement initiatives. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held that the federal government can’t require states or localities to use their resources to enforce federal programs, such as immigration. This section also directs US federal prosecutors and other DOJ divisions to investigate incidents of resistance to federal immigration enforcement, including but not limited to federal crimes of conspiracy and harboring. This is not limited or specific to local governments or sanctuary policies, but could also potentially apply to organizations or individuals. This section provides motivation for the DOJ to focus prosecutions on immigration advocates and activists for their work.

Anti-commandeering doctrine: The Supreme Court has three times since 1992 affirmed that the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to enforce federal law. This has been called the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. In New York v. United States (1992), the Court struck down a provision of a federal statute that required states to take ownership of radioactive waste or face penalties. Printz v. United States (1997) concerned a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. The Court ruled that compelling state officers to execute federal laws violates the Constitution. in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Court invalidated a federal law that prohibited states from authorizing sports betting.

Also from the memo, a top line focus on immigrants who commit crimes. This is the main justification for the entire memo – mass deportations per se are not envisioned explicitly.

From the Memo, the mission: First, Cartels and other Transnational Criminal Organizations, such as Tren de Aragua (TdA)  and La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), are a scourge on society resulting in an unstable and unsafe border and huge flows of illegal immigration in violation of U.S. law. Second, brutal and intolerable violent crime by members of these organizations and illegal aliens is escalating rapidly across the country. Third, the fentanyl crisis and opioid epidemic are poisoning our communities and have inflicted an unprecedented toll of addiction, suffering, and death. The Justice Department must, and will, work to eradicate these threats.

[Focus on persons with associations with crime]: Consistent with the core principle of pursuing the most serious, readily provable offense, U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the other components shall pursue charges relating to criminal immigration-related violations when such violations are presented by federal, state, or local law enforcement or the Intelligence Community.

As of mid-2025, ICE maintains a largely outsourced detention system, with a total contracted capacity of approximately 62,913 beds. These fall into three main categories: privately run detention centers, local and state jails operating under intergovernmental agreements, and a small set of federally owned and ICE-controlled service processing centers.

Privately operated Contract Detention Facilities (CDFs):  Run by corporations such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, an estimated 100 to 130 facilities and housing roughly 54,000 to 57,000 beds—nearly 90% of ICE’s total detention capacity.

State and local jails, typically county jails: Around 200 to 240 jails under contract, only a subset houses large numbers of detainees on a regular basis. An estimated 6,900 to 7,600 beds, or approximately 11% of total capacity.

Federally owned Service Processing Centers (SPCs): eight, including those in El Paso, Miami (Krome), and Batavia, New York. Some are operated by private contractors. An estimated 3,100 to 6,300 beds, or around 5–10% of the national detention capacity.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act provides funding to double capacity by close 116,000. Geo Group and Core Logic today each control about 65,000 prison beds, suggesting that about 40% of their beds are dedicated to ICE.  Major expansion of prison capacity to service ICE will most likely go to these companies.

Go here, here, and here.

 

 

 

A battle between the federal government and Los Angeles residents over mass deportation began in earnest on June 6. On that day, ICE began to engage in more aggressive, wide-spread search and arrest of unauthorized persons.  In the face of public protests, the federal government quickly escalated battle by the administration invoking its powers to assign the California National Guard and by bringing in Marines.

The immigrant community had been preparing since January for aggressive ICE enforcement.  A rapid response system of alerts and deployment of pro-immigrant support had been introduced by CHIRLA, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, which was founded in 1986 to support immigrants in responding to the immigration act that Congress passed in that year.

On June 8, the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, said on TV, “We saw union activists and organizers be involved in these efforts to resist our operations. We’ve got lots of video online and both surveillance videos. We have FBI teams working around the clock. We will identify you. We’ll find you and we’ll come get you.” (Go here).

On July 7, National Guard, ICE and other law enforcement details performed for an hour a highly visible, provocative display of force and intimidation. This included humvees, armed personnel on foot and horse-mounted agents. No arrests reported.  The timing of the event was when families were in the park, which is a popular gathering place for immigrant families.

ICE began at least as early as May in a practice of accosting persons on the street and at work sites, demanding proof of legal status. In the law suit brought to stop this practice, cases cited included: On May 18, in Lincoln Park, plaintiff Maria L. was detained while picnicking with her children. Officers surrounded her, demanded identification, and allegedly mocked her accent before releasing her without explanation. On June 2, in MacArthur Park, plaintiff Jorge D. was tackled from behind by a uniformed officer, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police vehicle for nearly an hour before being released without charges.

CHIRLA and other parties brought suit to bar encounters were there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that the person accosted was in the country without authorization, but based solely of race, type of employment, or similar factors. (District of Central District of California, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP.)

The suit led to the imposition on July 11 of a temporary restraining order, prohibiting ICE from making encounters without reasonable cause. The judge found that the plaintiffs’ allegations of being detained in public parks without individualized suspicion or probable cause were sufficient to support a claim of unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. She wrote that even brief detentions must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

The judge’s prohibitions included: “Demanding identification from individuals solely because they are speaking Spanish or appear Latino.’,,,,‘Detaining groups of families with children at picnic tables without articulable suspicion of wrongdoing.’…‘Using language such as ‘You people are always up to something’ or ‘This is why we check your kind.’’….‘Photographing parkgoers without explanation or consent and storing such images in mobile devices.’”

“Law enforcement officers are prohibited from initiating or continuing any stop, detention, questioning, or arrest based solely on any of the following factors: (a) Race, ethnicity, or skin color; (b) Perceived immigration status; (c) Use of Spanish or any language other than English; (d) Presence in or near a park, food vendor area, day-labor site, or church known to serve immigrant communities; (e) Lack of government-issued identification; (f) Perceived association with others believed to be undocumented; (g) Participation in immigrant rights activities or public assemblies; (h) Appearance, dress, or accents commonly associated with Latino identity.”