SAN DIEGO — In his inaugural week, President Trump enacted 10 executive orders concerning immigration, alongside numerous directives aimed at fulfilling his commitments to mass deportations and strengthening border security.
While certain initiatives triggered immediate changes, others are mired in legal obstacles, and some might take years to implement, leaving immigrant communities apprehensive about the future.
A significant determinant in Trump’s immigration strategy will be financial resources. Congress is anticipated to deliberate on additional funding shortly. There is a possibility that Trump may invoke emergency powers to access funds from the Defense Department, a tactic he utilized during his initial term for constructing a border wall.
A few changes in immigration policy have already surfaced under Trump, but several remain unaddressed:
Immigration officers have ramped up their arrest operations, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reporting an average of 710 daily immigration arrests recently. This marks a stark increase from the daily average of 311 recorded during President Biden’s term. If the current pace continues, it has the potential to eclipse the previous high of 636 daily arrests noted during the Obama administration in 2013.
During Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2020, ICE recorded daily averages of 376 arrests. Recent spikes began over the weekend, with high-profile enforcement activities taking place in cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and notably, Chicago.
The Trump administration has underscored the participation of various federal agencies in these ICE operations, a notable shift from the Biden administration’s approach. These agencies include the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Customs and Border Protection under the Department of Homeland Security.
Emile Bove, acting deputy attorney general, observed arrests in Chicago, illustrating increased involvement from the Justice Department.
New priorities for arrests under Trump encompass all undocumented individuals, not solely those with criminal records or perceived threats to public safety and national security. Some critics argue that this is business as usual for ICE, at least for now.
Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies, anticipates heightened enforcement in the coming weeks, predicting that Congress will green-light funding for approximately 80,000 detention beds—essentially doubling current capacities. ICE requires such space to detain individuals during legal proceedings and subsequent deportation arrangements.
Regarding deportations, ICE has not disclosed the number of individuals removed since Trump’s recent inauguration; however, the administration has alluded to deportation flights, some of which employ military aircraft.
Under Biden, over 270,000 individuals were deported within a year, marking the highest annual count in a decade due to increased deportation flights, a practice Biden did not apply using military transport.
In a noteworthy instance indicative of potential diplomatic pressure on reluctant governments, Trump announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on Colombia after President Gustavo Petro declined to permit landing of military aircraft carrying deported individuals. These tariff measures were paused after Petro acquiesced.
One such military flight recently transported 64 deportees, shackled and handcuffed, to Guatemala. A deportee currently detained shared, “It’s my first attempt of the year and I don’t know if I will try again because it’s hard.”
The administration has broadened mechanisms enabling ICE to deport individuals without requiring them to appear before immigration judges by extending “expedited removal” authority to cover anyone in the country for up to two years.
The American Civil Liberties Union has initiated legal challenges against these rapid deportation processes.
Several policies with the potential for significant impact remain under consideration:
The administration has revoked a guideline preventing arrests at “sensitive locations,” such as schools and hospitals, and has indicated intentions to deport individuals who entered legally on presidential parole, a privilege Biden extensively utilized.
Additionally, threats have been made to penalize “sanctuary” jurisdictions that restrict their cooperation with federal immigration agents.
At the border, Trump has discontinued a program linked to a mobile application that enabled migrants to enter the U.S. on two-year work permits, terminating appointments for tens of thousands of individuals stranded in Mexico.
In further actions, he scrapped a policy that allowed over 500,000 individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. on two-year permits under financial sponsorship.
Reactions to decisions made now could take time to materialize. Trump has secured Mexico’s approval to revive a key feature from his prior term known as “Remain in Mexico,” which necessitates that asylum seekers await U.S. immigration court hearings while in Mexico.
The Pentagon recently dispatched 1,500 active-duty soldiers to the border, though it remains uncertain whether they will transition to active law enforcement roles, as restrictions from an 1878 statute typically preclude military involvement in civilian law enforcement matters.
Despite this, Trump has indicated that he may utilize wartime powers to empower the Defense Department in various immigration-related capacities.
In the realm of refugee resettlement, Trump has halted the intake of refugees who are vetted overseas until further notice—this coming after significant reductions to the program during his first term, which was later revived by Biden. Organizations that offer support services, such as housing and job training, were informed by the State Department to cease operations immediately.
Moreover, legal aid organizations working within immigration courts and detention centers were instructed by the Justice Department to discontinue their support efforts.
Trump also proposed terminating automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil, a longstanding practice established by a constitutional amendment in 1868, which is presently being contested in court by a federal judge in Seattle.
