Gee: Trump’s war on migrants has echoes of Australia’s past

Interesting comparison:

…In both cases – 18th-century England, 21st-century America – the aim is to demonize, dehumanize and finally to expel these agents of disorder. The Trump administration deports migrants to Honduras, El Salvador and Africa. England’s rulers dispatched prisoners to Australia.

As Mr. Hughes puts it, transportation was an attempt to uproot “an enemy class from the British social fabric.” Sending the convicts away “conveyed evil to another world.” 

But it never worked. England’s crime wave rolled on. The early 19th-century was a time of protest and upheaval. Nor did the exiled convicts prove to be the irredeemable human detritus they were often said to be. 

Many earned their freedom – their “ticket of leave” – for hard work and good behaviour. Together with the free settlers who began arriving in time, they and their children built thriving colonies in this vast and distant continent. Out of those colonies sprang a thriving, stubbornly democratic nation: Australia.

Source: Trump’s war on migrants has echoes of Australia’s past

Trump And Miller Slashing Legal Immigration By 33% To 50%

Of note:

New research concludes the Trump administration’s policies will reduce legal immigration to the United States by 33% to 50% over four years. Restricting Americans’ ability to sponsor their closest family members will be the administration’s primary way to lower legal immigration. While aggressive deportation tactics by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have garnered headlines, cuts to the admission of legal immigrants will have a profound impact on the country and millions of people.

Numerous Restrictions On Legal Immigration

Trump officials have implemented policies to block American citizens and employers from sponsoring legal immigrants. The policies will override the immigration rules and categories that Congress established unless a lawsuit stops the actions.

“The Trump administration’s policies will reduce legal immigration to the United States by an estimated 33% to 50%, or by 1.5 million to 2.4 million legal immigrants, by the end of Donald Trump’s four-year term,” according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis.

In FY 2023, 1,172,910 legal immigrants received permanent residence, also commonly referred to as green cards, on a pace for 4,691,640 over four years. “NFAP estimates 1,546,710 to 2,369,998, or 33% to 50%, fewer legal immigrants will gain green cards during Donald Trump’s administration due to policies that include significantly lower admission levels for refugees, restrictions on the Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens due to ‘public charge’ policies and a 39-country immigration ban, actions taken against Diversity Visa recipients and other policies.” The analysis provides a range because uncertainty remains about how restrictively administration officials will enact the policies….

Source: Trump And Miller Slashing Legal Immigration By 33% To 50%

How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Over the past year, President Trump’s administration has deported about 230,000 people who were arrested inside the country and another 270,000 at the border, a New York Times analysis of federal data shows.

The number of deportations from interior arrests since Mr. Trump took office is already higher than the total during the entire four years of the Biden administration. It offers the clearest measure of the impact of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown and expansive efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of people.

At the same time, the number of people trying to cross the Southwest border has fallen to record lows. As a result, far fewer people were arrested and deported from the border than in the preceding few years.

Another roughly 40,000 people returned to their countries after signing up to “self-deport” and receive a stipend through a novel program and app provided by the administration.

That brings the total number of deportations since Mr. Trump took office to 540,000 — fewer than in the last two years of the Biden administration, when border crossings were at record highs. There were 590,000 total deportations in 2023 and 650,000 in 2024….

Source: How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Thompson: Year one of Donald Trump’s second term has been catastrophic for American democracy

Comprehensive, accurate and depressing read:

…There’s no sugar-coating it: A year of Donald Trump has been more catastrophic for American democracy than we could have predicted. I don’t know how much more often I can say this, but the cruelty is the point. President Trump’s strongman tactics and callous attitude toward the suffering of vulnerable parts of American society are celebrated by some even as life for ordinary Americans becomes harder. 

But those same Americans, who have much to lose in protecting their neighbours, are still doing so. Amid the unravelling of American democracy, there are networks of mutual aid, acts of refusal and sustained resistance. Democracy does not disappear all at once; it is hollowed out gradually, and therefore can be defended in the same way: Through ordinary people insisting again and again that empathy is not weakness, care and solidarity are among the most powerful weapons, and democracy worth fighting for.

Source: Year one of Donald Trump’s second term has been catastrophic for American democracy

MPI: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Usual good and comprehensive analysis by MPI:

Having campaigned on and won re-election with immigration as a top issue, President Donald Trump has kept it at center stage in the first year of his second term. Immediately upon returning to office, the administration advanced sweeping changes to immigration policy, unprecedented in their breadth and reach. These changes have made the United States more hostile to unauthorized immigrants while also altering how the government treats immigration and immigrants of all legal statuses and the communities in which they live. The impacts on individuals, families, workplaces, and the nation’s overall economic outlook and global standing will be felt for years ahead.

While some efforts have stalled or not yet met the White House’s lofty goals, the administration has dramatically reshaped the machinery of government to target unauthorized immigrants in the country, deter unauthorized border arrivals, make the status of many legally resident immigrants more tenuous, and impose obstacles for lawful entry of large swaths of international travelers and would-be immigrants. These changes could set the course for reduced family, humanitarian, and employment-based immigration in the future, while also driving key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

In This Article

To accomplish the administration’s mass deportation goal, Trump advisor Stephen Miller and other aides dismantled longstanding norms. The White House invoked archaic statutes, enlisted support from state and local law enforcement as well as federal agencies that historically had no immigration enforcement role, and pressured foreign governments to receive deportees. Perhaps most visibly, it militarized immigration enforcement: Scenes of troops and masked federal agents roaming U.S. streets, lobbing tear gas and in some cases violently—and even fatally—subduing individuals, have garnered global attention and profoundly changed how many residents go about their daily lives. Among other changes, some U.S. citizens now feel compelled to carry identification with them at all times.

The administration has leaned heavily on executive action rather than seeking legislative change in Congress. As of January 7, Trump had signed 38 executive orders related to immigration, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the 225 total orders signed so far during his first year, which is more than the 220 executive orders signed during his entire first term. The administration also ushered in hundreds of other actions via presidential proclamations and policy guidance that have had profound impacts on immigration policy. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that the Trump administration in the first year of its second term took more than 500 actions on immigration, surpassing the 472 actions over all four years of Trump’s first term.

While some elements of the administration’s approach mirror policies of the prior term, albeit at far greater scale and scope, the changes of the last year have been arguably more impactful than any during the first term. Administration officials appear to have learned from their first-term experience and have also benefited from a much more sympathetic Congress and Supreme Court. Indeed, Congress in July provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a staggering $170 billion to upscale over Trump’s second term what was already the world’s largest detention and deportation machinery. And the Supreme Court has greenlit several high-profile actions, including revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from about 600,000 Venezuelans, although it blocked the administration from deporting noncitizens without due process and did not allow deployment of the National Guard for immigration enforcement. Key questions on birthright citizenship and other immigration policies are yet to be resolved.

The net change has been dizzying in its scope and speed. After the administration further shut down access to asylum, unauthorized arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted to the lowest levels since the 1970s. This development has allowed the administration to shift its focus largely to unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, whom MPI estimates numbered 13.7 million as of mid-2023. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests have more than quadrupled since Trump took office, while average daily detention has doubled. On December 19, DHS said that 622,000 noncitizens had been deported since Trump took office, a high—but not historic—number. It is below the 778,000 repatriations carried out in the final full fiscal year of the Biden administration, and well short of the Trump team’s pledge of 1 million deportations per year. The administration’s deportation number likely includes noncitizens turned away at U.S. borders and at airports; limited release of immigration enforcement data means it is unclear who is being counted and how. While the administration claims 1.9 million people have “self-deported” during that same period, it has not provided any data, including on use of the CBP Home app, through which immigrants are offered a free flight and $1,000 payment if they return to their origin country.

The hardline approach has extended to many lawfully present immigrants and those aspiring to come legally. The administration has stripped temporary legal protections from more than 1.5 million humanitarian parolees, nearly completely halted refugee resettlement, and severely restricted access to asylum. It has also erected obstacles and therefore slowed the granting of lawful permanent residence, temporary visas, and U.S. citizenship. International students and scholars have been targeted for expressing their political opinions, many newcomers face extensive vetting of their social media activity and medical history, and hefty new fees and visa bonds have caused some would-be immigrants and visitors to rethink plans to come to the United States. Slower legal immigration will likely affect labor markets, local economies, and the broader economic outlook for years to come, with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Congressional Budget Office already reporting negative effects and potential future implications.

This article reviews the changes to U.S. immigration policy during the first year of the second Trump term….

Source: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Polgreen: One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt [#immigration]

Good critique of Trump’s National Security Strategy view on immigration:

…Arguments in favor of migration tend to focus either on its economic benefits or its moral claim on the American psyche. But from the nation’s founding these two have been intertwined in ways both productive and confounding. Over the past year, as I’ve written about migration across the globe, I have often asked opponents of migration whether they would prefer to live in a country people flee from or flee toward. The answer, invariably, is the latter. The recent surge in support for immigration reflects, I suspect, that America’s status as the destination of choice for the world’s best minds is an intense source of pride.

It is also a source of strength. Trump clearly prefers the menacing snarl of hard power, but America’s openness to the world’s most ambitious people — and its unique ability to absorb and make use of human talent — has perhaps been its most potent form of soft power. Why try to defeat the world’s richest country when you might have the chance to join it and reap its ample rewards?

That is not the Trump administration’s way of thinking. For all the talk about abolishing D.E.I. in favor of merit, it seems to believe that for Americans to compete with the best of the world, merit must be redefined in nationalist terms, if not entirely set aside. Its National Security Strategy said so explicitly.

“Should merit be smothered, America’s historic advantages in science, technology, industry, defense and innovation will evaporate,” the document states. However, it continues, “we cannot allow meritocracy to be used as a justification to open America’s labor market to the world in the name of finding ‘global talent’ that undercuts American workers.” Trumpism seems to be seeking a form of talent autarky.

This is a radical change, and one that will surely leave the United States poorer, weaker and more isolated. I cannot help but detect in these nativist outbursts against Indian immigrants and their descendants a profound loss of confidence. The protesters repulsed by the towering Hanuman statue saw it as a threat to their culture, religion and traditions. But to me, that glittering hulk of alloyed metal symbolizes something else: the enduring magnetism of America’s promise, tarnished though it may be.

Source: One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt

A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

Interesting argument:

In asking the Supreme Court to let him do away with birthright citizenship, President Trump has urged the justices to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment.

What the amendment meant when it was ratified in 1868, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a brief, was that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth.”

The court will hear arguments in the spring to decide whether that is right. There are many tools for assessing the original meaning of a constitutional provision, including the congressional and public debates that surrounded its adoption.

But one important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified.

A new study to be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online fills that gap. It examined the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871 and found good reason to think that more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Mr. Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. But no one thought to file a challenge to their qualifications.

That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story.

The study raises new questions about Mr. Trump’s legal battle to narrow protections under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which says: “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.”

The Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine. It adds that each House “shall be the judge” of its members’ qualifications.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Professor Frost said, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”…

Source: A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

USA: The next step was citizenship. Then these immigrants were pulled out of line.

Cruelty personnified:

For immigrants, naturalization ceremonies represent the culmination of their yearslong effort to earn citizenship. In front of a federal judge, permanent residents raise their right hands, repeat the Oath of Allegiance to their new country, and usually wave a small American flag with pride once the judge confirms their citizenship.

On Dec. 4, inside Boston’s Faneuil Hall – a historic site where revolutionaries like Samuel Adams fostered the idea of American freedom – one such event took a turn. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers denied entry to several people who showed up for their naturalization ceremony, according to Project Citizenship, a nonprofit providing legal support for those seeking citizenship. Each of these individuals was from one of 19 countries the Trump administration identified as high-security risks under a Dec. 2 Department of Homeland Security memo, which mandated the immediate pausing and review of immigration applications from those countries, including Haiti, Afghanistan, and Venezuela.

What happened at the Boston ceremony is part of a tightening of the naturalization process throughout the country. In late November, New York state Attorney General Letitia James wrote a letter to USCIS questioning its decision to cancel ceremonies in several counties in her state; USCIS said the counties “did not meet the statutory requirements.” On Dec. 9 in Indianapolis, 38 out of 100 prospective citizens were turned away at their ceremony, according to local news reports. Local outlets in Atlanta reported that, on Dec. 12, three immigrants had their oath ceremonies canceled.

The efforts to clamp down on legal immigration pathways follows the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, one fatally, just before Thanksgiving. An Afghan national, who entered the country legally in 2021 through a program for allies who served alongside the U.S. military, has been charged with first-degree murder. Following that attack, President Donald Trump quickly announced significant immigration restrictions, including a pause on all asylum decisions. This week, the Trump administration added 20 countries to a list of nations whose citizens face full or partial bans on entering the U.S.

Those who apply for naturalization are some of the most thoroughly vetted immigrants in the country. To be eligible, an immigrant must generally have been a lawful permanent resident for at least five years, be a “person of good moral character,” and pass tests in civics and English. The process can take decades, and the oath ceremony is largely seen as a formality.

Gail Breslow, the executive director of Project Citizenship in Boston, said that 21 clients of the organization had their naturalization ceremonies canceled this month. Clients were either pulled out of line at the Dec. 4 ceremony or notified via email that their ceremonies, scheduled for Dec. 4 or Dec. 10, had been canceled.

Source: The next step was citizenship. Then these immigrants were pulled out of line.

Snyder: Trump’s mass deportation policy is taking American democracy with it

Uncomfortable but valid parallel with the rise of the Nazis:

…It was foreseeable that U.S. President Donald Trump would seek to exploit such violence. He announced his intention to target “Third World countries,” and blamed all of America’s problems on migrants. He expressed his desire to deport millions of people and to strip citizenship from Americans whom he deems incompatible with “Western civilization.”

For the Nazis, the mass deportations and pogrom of 1938 were steps toward creating a centralized national police agency. In the U.S., something similar is unfolding with Immigration and Customs Enforcement: initially tasked to carry out deportations, ICE has taken on espionage roles and been reinforced by the National Guard. In these respects, it is becoming something like a national police force, with ideological propaganda and links to the armed forces. 

In one way, mass deportations and Kristallnacht advanced the consolidation of the Nazi regime. But this kind of instability was unpopular in Germany – much as ICE raids are unpopular in U.S. cities. The radical next steps were possible only under cover of war. For Mr. Trump, starting a war with Venezuela (or someone) would be the next logical move in advancing regime change at home. It is not hard to see that Mr. Trump understands this, given his escalating provocations since the U.S. began attacking alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean. 

The past never repeats, but it does instruct. The people who want authoritarianism in America know that seizing on the emotions associated with political belonging can lead to turmoil and regime change. And the people who want democracy in America can see the pattern and, by naming it, take the crucial first step toward bringing the process to a halt. 

Source: Trump’s mass deportation policy is taking American democracy with it

New Trump-Miller Strategy Clashes On Immigration And Innovation

One of many:

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy document appears to bear the strong influence of Stephen Miller and assumes America can gain the benefits of immigration without admitting immigrants. The document, released Dec. 5, criticizes immigration but welcomes innovation and economic growth, which immigrants contribute to, and praises merit but opposes allowing companies to hire immigrants if they are the best fit for a position. The strategy document encourages other countries to open their markets while the United States maintains tariffs to protect favored industries. It also criticizes America’s allies in Europe and minimizes the role of NATO such that a Russian government spokesperson said the strategy is “largely consistent with our vision.”

A Contradiction On Merit And U.S. Immigration Policy

The National Security Strategy document’s immigration references show the significant influence of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The document criticizes admitting even the most highly skilled individuals to the United States. 

“Competence and merit are among our greatest civilizational advantages: where the best Americans are hired, promoted, and honored, innovation and prosperity follow,” according to the strategy document. “Should merit be smothered, America’s historic advantages in science, technology, industry, defense and innovation will evaporate. The success of radical ideologies that seek to replace competence and merit with favored group status would render America unrecognizable and unable to defend itself.”

However, in a glaring contradiction, the document goes on to declare that hiring a foreign-born person, even if they are talented and the best person for the job, would be wrong. “At the same time, we cannot allow meritocracy to be used as a justification to open America’s labor market to the world in the name of finding ‘global talent’ that undercuts American workers. In our every principle and action, America and Americans must always come first.”

That sentiment is consistent with the administration’s immigration policy, which has sought to tilt the playing field against foreign nationals to prevent their hiring in the United States. (That does not mean companies won’t shift resources and hire high-skilled foreign nationals and place them in other countries.) H-1B temporary visas are often the only way for high-skilled foreign nationals to work in the United States long term. The administration has imposed a $100,000 fee on the entry of new H-1B visa holders from outside the United States, making them prohibitively expensive to hire. The Labor Department will propose a rule to raise the prevailing wage requirement with an expected aim of pricing H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market.

Source: New Trump-Miller Strategy Clashes On Immigration And Innovation