Populism at the border

Donald Trump has long understood that immigration is not merely a social or cultural issue in American politics but also an economic lever that can be pulled to mobilise domestic support. The latest decision by the United States to suspend immigrant visa processing for 75 countries, including Pakistan, effective January 21, is best read through this prism. Branded under the familiar "America First" slogan, the move once again fuses populist politics with economic messaging — casting the immigrant as a potential fiscal burden and the state as the protector of the American taxpayer.

The official justification is explicit. The State Department has linked the unprecedented freeze to the "public-charge" rule, arguing that immigrants from the affected countries are more likely to rely on public welfare programmes. Until Washington can ensure that new immigrants will not "extract wealth from the American people", all categories of immigrant visas — family, employment and diversity — will remain suspended. The language is framing immigration not as human mobility or opportunity, but as a balance sheet risk.

Yet the real-world implications, particularly for countries like Pakistan, are far from abstract. Thousands of Pakistanis who annually seek immigrant visas, particularly for family reunification or permanent employment, now face uncertainty. For many, these visas are not only gateways to better standards of living but pathways to long-term economic safety that can benefit both economies. A blanket suspension, with no clear timeline for review, risks penalising legitimate applicants alongside the small minority the policy claims to target.

At the same time, it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss all security and economic concerns as mere dog-whistling. States do have a legitimate right to ensure that immigration systems are not exploited by individuals involved in suspicious or unlawful activities. Ignoring these risks altogether would be reckless. The challenge lies in precision, not prohibition. Populism may win elections, but policy built on broad-brush exclusions rarely stands the test of time.