Trump’s immigration crackdown isn’t policy, it’s punishment

Trump’s sweeping immigration restrictions slash asylum, birthright citizenship, and refugee intake, igniting criticism

The Trump administration's latest moves to tighten immigration policies have sparked widespread concerns about their human rights implications and potential legal challenges. 

From restrictions on birthright citizenship to the suspension of key immigration programs, these actions are reshaping the U.S. immigration landscape and creating uncertainty for millions of immigrants.

For the affected families, the stakes are heartbreakingly high. With the cancellation of asylum appointments and the expansion of fast-track deportation procedures, many now face the grim reality of being sent back to the dangers they fled.

It is also a test of federal versus local power, with sanctuary cities pushing back against what they see as overreach.

In the end, these policies raise more questions than answers. How do we balance national security with human rights? Can local communities withstand federal pressure? And most importantly, what happens to the lives caught in the crossfire?

Trump Administration Expands Immigration Restrictions 

“President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration turns the white nationalist ‘Great Replacement Theory’ into federal policy. To be clear, reinstating cruel border policies, ending rights enshrined in the Constitution like birthright citizenship, halting the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, shutting down the CBP One application, and implementing targeted raids across the United States, not only sows chaos and fear among communities across the country and people attempting to seek safety in the U.S., it perpetuates false narratives and harm rooted in white supremacy” says  Amy Fischer, Director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program at Amnesty International USA.

The Trump administration's aggressive stance on immigration has evolved beyond targeting individuals living in the U.S. illegally, extending to new restrictions on legal immigration, including programs for refugees displaced by violence and conflict.

This effort led to measures such as closing the U.S. asylum system to individuals without proper documentation, authorising the military to assist in deportations, and expanding the powers of federal officers to target unauthorised immigrants, including those without criminal backgrounds.

Over 22,000 refugees who had been approved for entry into the U.S. were left stranded, unable to proceed with their relocation.

“Brave, resilient families and individuals arrive to the U.S. to exercise their right to seek safety, to seek a new life, to pursue their dreams, and contribute to their new communities. They are met by a broken system that prolongs and profits off their suffering” added Director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Program.

In a further move to tighten immigration controls, the Trump administration also shut down the CBP One app. This was a tool previously endorsed by the Biden administration that allowed migrants in Mexico to request entry at US border points. This app facilitated the lawful entry of more than 1,500 migrants per day seeking asylum through official ports of entry. 

In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been authorised to revoke the parole status of hundreds of thousands of individuals who had entered under Biden-era programs.

This could result in the deportation of over 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, as well as nearly 1 million migrants who had entered the U.S. through the now-defunct CBP One app.

It also reduced the refugee intake cap from 110,000 to 50,000, a move that further devastated vulnerable populations, according to an Amnesty International UK report. 

Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration Draw Parallels to Historical Discriminatory Measure

Previously, in 2017, the Trump administration also passed an executive order that banned individuals from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. and imposed severe restrictions on refugees.

The order was widely condemned for its discriminatory nature, framed as a 'national security measure' but viewed by critics as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict Muslim immigration.

Despite facing temporary legal obstacles, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately allowed the travel ban to go into effect in June 2018, overturning previous blocks. The ban targeted citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, prohibiting entry for 90 days. 

The implications of these travel restrictions were far-reaching, with families separated and vulnerable refugees left without a haven. The policy raised significant human rights concerns, with critics arguing that it violated international law and contradicted the humanitarian principles upon which U.S. immigration policy had once been built.

The recent executive orders by the Trump administration have now raised significant concerns drawing comparisons to past discriminatory measures that have long been criticized for undermining the nation's democratic values. 

These orders, which include restrictions on nationality status for those born on U.S. soil and an expansion of expedited removal procedures, echo troubling historical decisions. Such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the special registration of individuals from predominantly Muslim countries after the September 11 attacks.

In 2001, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. government introduced a special registration program for nationals from countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan—nations with predominantly Muslim populations.

This system was widely criticized for its racial profiling implications, raising concerns about its resemblance to the internment camps used during World War II. 

The expansion of expedited removal under the Trump administration now threatens to increase the scope of deportations, potentially targeting individuals who are not actively involved in deportation proceedings. 

This shift has granted greater authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees enforcement actions such as raids, arrests, and deportations.

DHS, alongside U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), assumed responsibility for immigration enforcement and legal processing following the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 2001.

Although expedited removal is not a new tool in U.S. immigration law, the recent executive orders significantly broaden its application, further intensifying its potential use in enforcement actions.

These executive orders are not without controversy and are expected to face legal challenges. While U.S. presidents have the authority to issue executive orders to change departmental rules, they cannot contravene the Constitution or existing laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and no executive action can override its protections. Legal experts and immigration rights advocates can prepare for litigation to determine whether these measures infringe upon constitutional principles, particularly the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

As these executive actions undergo legal scrutiny, the U.S. legal system, including its federal courts and the U.S. The Supreme Court will play a pivotal role in determining whether these orders align with the Constitution and established immigration laws. 

The coming months are likely to witness intense legal battles that could have far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. immigration policy.

The revised ban, while repackaged, still enforced discriminatory policies.

Immigration Policy Under Democratic Presidents: A Mixed Legacy

The immigration policies during Democratic presidencies, particularly under President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden, have been marked by significant contradictions and challenges. 

Barack Obama's immigration policy legacy is a study in contrasts.

On one hand, he expanded deportation efforts, becoming what some critics have dubbed the “deporter-in-chief.” His administration deported over 3 million undocumented immigrants, more than any previous administration, largely due to the expansion of the Secure Communities program (S‑COMM).

While the program aimed to target dangerous criminals, research suggested that it had little effect on crime rates, which raised questions about its effectiveness.

On the other hand, Obama’s presidency also saw significant moves towards progressive reforms. His executive actions, most notably the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, allowed around 750,000 young undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. without the fear of deportation.

Despite these reforms, Obama's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform meant that his actions were temporary solutions at best, with no permanent path forward for millions of undocumented immigrants.

Joe Biden inherited a fractured immigration system from the Trump administration and sought to reshape it with promises of fairness and reform.

He quickly sought to reverse many of Trump’s immigration policies, including ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy and Title 42, which allowed the expedited removal of migrants under the guise of public health concerns.

Despite these efforts to facilitate legal entry, the Biden administration faced mounting criticism on both sides of the political spectrum.

Conservatives argued that his policies were too lenient, inviting illegal immigration, while liberals lamented that his border enforcement policies, including the continuation of certain Trump-era practices, were too harsh. T

he result was a border crisis that continued to escalate throughout Biden's term, leading to record numbers of encounters with migrants.

“The Trump administration believes our immigrant neighbors shouldn’t be here.  And after President Biden eroded the rights of people seeking safety, President Trump’s promises to further crack down on asylum will only exacerbate the chaos across the country and the humanitarian crisis at the border” says  Amy Fischer.

Despite the advancements made under Obama and Biden, U.S. immigration policy remains deeply fractured. The failure to pass comprehensive reform under both administrations speaks to the gridlock in Congress, where immigration has long been a politically charged issue.

While Obama’s DACA program and Biden’s parole initiatives offered temporary solutions, they fall short of addressing the root issues of undocumented immigration and border management.

End of Birthright Citizenship

A major change outlined by the administration includes the revocation of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, if the child’s mother is unlawfully present or has temporary legal status, and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a green card holder. 

Previously, this was not the case. A baby born in the U.S. would automatically acquire citizenship because under the constitution of America, there is a 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment says that citizenship is acquired by birth. 

An anonymous lawyer who practised immigration and deportation law in the U.S. between 1999 and 2005 explains that President Trump cannot pass an executive order that violates the U.S. constitution, that goes against any past judgment of the Supreme Court, and also cannot violate the statute, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

“While the administration can amend executive rules within its own departments, it does not have the authority to alter judicial precedent or change the Immigration and Nationality Act” the lawyer adds. 

As a result, there is growing concern among many, with widespread uncertainty about the citizenship status of babies born to undocumented mothers on US soil after February 19.

This ambiguity will persist until the executive order is challenged in court by immigrant rights advocates and legal experts, who are expected to argue that the order is unconstitutional and infringes upon the protections granted by the 14th Amendment.

While the intent behind this measure is to restrict who can be recognized as a U.S. citizen, the practical implications remain unclear. 

The process of issuing birth certificates is managed by state governments, and it is uncertain how the policy will interact with those systems. The move has already attracted legal challenges, with several lawsuits filed against the order. 

As a result, the enforcement of the directive is currently on hold, pending legal rulings.

Legal Uncertainty and Future Challenges

As the administration moves forward with these restrictive measures, the future for millions of immigrants remains uncertain. The ongoing legal battles surrounding the birthright citizenship restrictions and the review of TPS designations will be pivotal in determining the long-term impact of these policies. 

In the meantime, immigrant families continue to face an uncertain future, navigating the shifting landscape of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration. 

The legal and social implications of these changes could reshape the U.S. immigration system for years to come, with potential ramifications for the broader immigrant community.