A Second Term: The Resurgence of Right-Wing Immigration Policies

As of February 20th, it had been 31 days since President Donald J. Trump took office for his second term, bringing an influx of executive orders, new policies, and government restructures regarding immigration. With an increased focus on mass deportations, draconian border enforcement, and isolationist policies, this wave of changes has sparked critical discussions surrounding their implications for the American socioeconomic and political landscapes. 

One of the most controversial facets of the Trump immigration strategy is the aggressive and oftentimes wrongful pursuit of mass deportation. Under this approach, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) now has the authorization from Executive Order 14148 to enter schools, workplaces, hospitals, homes, and even places of worship to apprehend undocumented immigrants. Economically and socially, the ramifications of this action are profound. Immigrants are well known to form the backbone of the U.S. workforce, playing vital roles in the technology, healthcare, and service sectors. An abrupt decrease in this workforce could feed into the severe labor shortages the nation is currently facing and further destabilize our struggling economy.

You may also be wondering what could be ethically wrong with the ongoing mass deportations, especially since the current administration preaches it is exclusively targeting criminal undocumented groups. Well, it begins with the legal definition of “criminal;” under United States law, having undocumented status is not a criminal offense, but a civil one, meaning that undocumented persons cannot be legally tried in criminal court and are, therefore, not inherently criminals. So, when the public is told that the only people facing deportation are undocumented criminals, it is assumed the mentioned individuals are involved in financial, violent, drug, or other crimes. Yet, when new Trump-era immigration policies are analyzed, we see that just being undocumented falls under their definition of “criminal.” These policies are indiscriminate, targeting vulnerable individuals rather than actual threats. Under the increased authority of ICE, we are seeing infants, elementary school children, and refugees being deported under the guise of national security. 

Additionally, we are seeing huge red flags within these policies in terms of human rights violations. In a recent case, a group of Iranian Christians, including children, fleeing persecution and seeking asylum, was turned away from the U.S. border and flown in shackles on a military plane to Panama. Furthermore, Guantanamo Bay, a military prison infamous for housing terrorism suspects and violence has also been used to house migrants during their deportation. Altogether, this signals a disturbing shift in U.S. immigration enforcement tactics.

Now, shifting towards the U.S.-Mexico border, the Trump administration prioritizes a closed border approach with limited legal immigration pathways. Moreover, his second term has seen an expansion of isolationist policies, including the reinstatement of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces asylum seekers to wait outside U.S. borders as their cases, which can take up to 18 months to fully process, are reviewed. The executive order “Protecting The United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Threats” aims to “enhance” the vetting of visa applicants, ultimately making it more difficult for individuals from “suspect” nations or low-income immigrants to obtain status, targeting birthright citizenship, and increasing border measures.

Finally, there’s the most contentious part of the new immigration policies: the proposed ending of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrines birthright citizenship. The current administration argues that children born to non-citizen parents should not receive U.S. citizenship automatically. If enacted, this policy change would not be a mere shift in the American immigration approach but would create a generation of stateless individuals, complicating the already tense immigration debate by attacking the founding principles of inclusion and equality that have long defined our nation. The constitutionality of this policy has been highly questioned, as its passage would require a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling. The attempted enactment of this policy has been met with extreme litigation, including lawsuits from 22 states, setting the stage for one of the most high-profile legal battles in United States history. 

When reflecting on immigration policy, we tend to think of it as a small part of the American political landscape, failing to acknowledge that these changes signify a broader ideological shift within our nation. The United States is increasingly isolationist, prioritizing prosperity and individual progress over its obligation to provide for the international community as a global superpower, to a point where our politics have begun to lose their humanity. These policies are not just cruel; they’re counterproductive. If the goal is to strengthen America, why are we ripping apart the very communities that allow it to grow and excel? What kind of nation do we want to be? One that self-isolates from the rest of the world, chases away those in need, and punishes its most vulnerable? Or a nation that embraces diversity, fosters inclusion and remains a symbol of opportunity. We must now wait and see if our legislators can make the correct choice.