
Trump's crusade against all immigrants – even legal ones – is unprecedented
The Donald Trump administration has billed itself as taking unprecedented steps to crack down on illegal immigration. While the total number of deportations has yet to surge, it may happen soon. The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, supports suspending habeas corpus to speed up deportations, and the border czar, Tom Homan, has suggested blatantly ignoring court orders. Private companies are also lining up to cash in on mass deportations.
Nonetheless, Trump's approach so far to immigration deemed illegal has not differed much from what Barack Obama and Joe Biden did. So why does everything feel different?
The answer is that Trump has launched an unprecedented crusade against legal immigrants. And the tactics have been jarringly lawless and cruel.
For example, Trump's administration has almost completely banned refugee resettlement, sought to revoke temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands who have immigrated to flee extreme conditions, eliminated the legal status of thousands of international students, arrested legal asylum seekers at their immigration check-ins, jailed other legal asylum seekers in a maximum security prison in El Salvador, declared an end to birthright citizenship and revoked the legal status of nearly a million humanitarian parolees who had applied for legal entry using the CBP One app.
While the Obama and Biden administrations likewise took aggressive measures to regulate undocumented immigration – thus earning well-founded criticisms from immigration activists who took to calling Obama the 'deporter-in-chief' – both presidents also worked to expand the pathways for legal immigration. Some of their initiatives were blocked by Congress or the courts, but the result was a net expansion of legal immigration under both administrations.
On the other hand, Trump has consistently worked to block as many pathways to legal migration as possible. In Trump's first term, certain aspects of his immigration agenda were similarly constrained by Congress or the courts, but the result was still a major decrease in legal immigration.
In Trump's second term, this assault on legal immigrants has escalated at a furious pace, and while courts have already found many of these actions illegal according to long-established precedent, the administration shows no sign of slowing down. Indeed, Trump officials have become increasingly bold in defying court rulings, and all of this is taking place under the watch of a supreme court so Trump-friendly that last year it granted him sweeping immunity to commit crimes.
As a historian of border policy, I find Tump's attack on the CBP One app especially demoralizing. A longstanding contradiction in our immigration system is that while technically people have the right to apply for asylum once they reach US soil, it is incredibly difficult to arrive in the US to exercise this right. Accordingly, the only legal way to immigrate for the vast majority of people is to first survive a deadly gauntlet of oceans, jungles, deserts and criminal organizations, and only then begin an asylum application, which is still a long shot. David Fitzgerald's 2019 book Refuge Beyond Reach offers a detailed description of this insidious system and its long history.
While it was largely unappreciated at the time, the Biden administration took meaningful steps to address this deadly contradiction by creating a way to legally apply for asylum through the CBP One app while still abroad. This enabled people facing grave humanitarian crises to start applications outside the US, and if approved, they could then buy plane tickets and travel to the US safely with humanitarian parole.
The initiative was successful, legal, and in many ways, historic. Hundreds of thousands of people were able to migrate legally and escape extremely difficult conditions.
This infuriated conservatives, who launched a barrage of vicious lies to demonize the program and the people using it. JD Vance insisted on the debate stage that these immigrants were illegal, and when corrected by debate moderators, whined that fact-checking was against the rules. Ted Cruz used his podcast to accuse Biden of chartering flights to bring in undocumented people who would vote Democrat. And Trump accused them of eating pets.
Just by cancelling the program for future enrollees, Trump is already launching a disturbing assault on legal immigration. Yet in an escalation of cruelty that is difficult to even comprehend, Trump canceled the program retroactively as well, capriciously revoking the legal status of hundreds of thousands of extremely vulnerable people who simply followed the rules.
If you think that that sounds dystopian and cruel, you're right. And that's exactly the point: cruelty itself is a tactic to scare immigrants away.
The child separation policy from Trump's first term was an early example of this penchant for using visible displays of cruelty as an immigration deterrent and his new administration has worked around the clock to invent creative new horrors: from shipping deportees to Guantánamo Bay, to sending masked agents to disappear students, to indefinitely detaining immigrants with no criminal record in a notoriously dangerous prison in El Salvador (many of whom were arrested while attending legal immigration appointments), and then sending Noem to El Salvador to do a photoshoot with these political prisoners as props. The message to immigrants is clear: leave, or never come in the first place, because this could happen to you, even if you do it 'the right way'.
The takeaway from all of this is that right now, real people – our friends, families, students and neighbors – are suffering at the hands of a cruel and lawless government. And while Republican policymakers are driving these actions, many centrist Democrats, such as Gavin Newsom, are giving tacit approval by writing off these disturbing human rights violations as merely the 'distraction of the day'.
I refuse to ignore this suffering. I hope you refuse as well.
Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Shell reports fire at furnace unit at Shell Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex
June 6 (Reuters) - Shell on Friday said that at approximately 2:20 p.m. on June 4, a fire occurred at furnace unit number five at the Shell Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex. The company said site personnel quickly extinguished the fire and that there are multiple other furnaces currently operating on site. It said the unit is currently offline as the investigation into the incident continues.


The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chile hit by major 6.7 magnitude earthquake
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. Your support makes all the difference.


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Why don't my wife's affairs bother me?
Q. After more than 20 years of marriage, my wife had a brief sexual dalliance with a family friend. Since then I've been shocked to discover that I find the idea of her with another man both excruciatingly painful and extremely arousing, and she has had a few liaisons with other men, each of which I have known about. Is it perfectly healthy to accept that I find other men desiring my wife very erotic and she loves the validation of being desired? Or is this the beginning of the end for our marriage? A. This is a really complex question that on the surface challenges the concept of marriage being synonymous with fidelity. Dig a bit deeper, though, and it is really about why you choose to tolerate a situation that a majority of other people would find completely intolerable. Yes, it is true that a growing number of couples seem to be embracing polyamory and open relationships, but the story you tell does not fit that narrative. Your wife made a unilateral decision to have sex with a family friend and, when you found out about her betrayal, you were hurt — but you were also turned on. What happened next made things even more confusing. Because you didn't at any point hold your wife to account and seemed, in one sense at least, to enjoy the experience, she has felt at liberty to repeat her behaviour several times. What strikes me is how emotionally distant you are from what is happening. In my experience, most men would feel deeply humiliated in your situation. Perhaps you are in all other respects a very alpha person and your response to your wife's behaviour is an inversion of who you really are — it may be a clichéd sexual trope but there have been numerous exposures of very powerful men who enjoy being humiliated during sex. You ask whether it is healthy to accept that you find other men desiring your wife very erotic but that question is in itself a distortion. Yes, lots of men enjoy the envious glances they get when they are out in public with a desirable partner, but only because they know that their partner is not going home with any of them. Anything that is taboo can heighten sexual arousal — it's how and why porn is so successful — but within the confines of a marriage it could make for a pretty exhausting and risky relationship. You wonder whether tolerating this situation might be a way of licensing yourself to explore other sexual relationships in future. In all honesty, unless you and your wife come to some sort of agreement about what this is really all about, I doubt you will have a future together. If you want one, you need to figure out how you got to where you are now. That requires you both to be honest about what your relationship was like before your wife's extramarital sexual activity. Did you love each other? Did you like each other? Did you feel emotionally connected? Did you have regular sex with each other? And what changed after 20 years? Could her behaviour be a bid for recognition, an attempt to get some sort of response from a man who no longer 'saw' her? Are these flings really her way of trying to find a new partner to move on with? Are you both actually considering an exit strategy? These are difficult questions and it will be much easier for you to find the answers if you have the support of a good couples therapist. This may be the beginning of the end for your marriage but, whatever happens, it is a turning point. Send your queries to