The ramp-up of federal immigration enforcement during the second Trump term has prompted sharp responses from state and local governments, with some limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or barring agents' wearing of masks or the establishment of immigrant detention facilities. At the same time, some Republican-led jurisdictions have embraced policies to encourage cooperation with ICE. This article traces the rise of "sanctuary" policies and divergent trends.
U.S. immigration policy, practice, and enforcement changed dramatically over the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, touching most corners of the immigration system. The government has cracked down on unauthorized immigration in the U.S. interior and at the border, expanded scrutiny of immigrants of all legal statuses, and erected barriers for would-be arrivals. This article provides a sweeping overview of the changes that have taken place and assesses their impacts.
E-Verify has been heralded as a key way to control unauthorized immigration to the United States, but federal efforts to expand the system stalled. There has been movement at the state level over the past decade, though, and there are signs it may rise in prominence again. This article details the history and challenges of E-Verify, and its limited uptake.
The number of people in U.S. immigrant detention has grown sharply under President Donald Trump and will likely continue to rise in coming months. The rapid ramp-up has relied on an array of nontraditional facilities as well as private prisons, and has been accompanied by allegations of harsh treatment and rising deaths. This article traces the growth and evolution of the world's largest immigration detention system.
U.S. immigration enforcement is undergoing a marked transformation, as state and local law enforcement authorities—once largely on the sidelines—have become central partners to the Trump administration. State and local participation is growing in size and scope, including the signing of hundreds of 287(g) deputization agreements, opening of Florida's Alligator Alcatraz, and Texas's multibillion-dollar Operation Lone Star.
In its bid to ramp up deportations, the Trump administration is granting ICE access to a swath of government databases that were previously off limits for immigration enforcement, including sensitive tax and Social Security records. This article details the growing digital arsenal of government and commercial databases that ICE can tap to identify and arrest removable noncitizens, and how this unprecedented data sharing has its roots in the post-9/11 era.
In making immigration enforcement its top priority, the Trump administration has bent a broad swath of the federal government to the mission of arresting, deporting, and barring the entry of noncitizens who lack legal status or have been convicted of crimes. The changes represent an unprecedented retooling and remaking of the vast U.S. deportation machinery, as this article details.
Within hours of his second inauguration, President Donald Trump moved to dramatically reshape U.S. immigration enforcement and policy. The changes set the stage for mass deportations, all but foreclose access to asylum at the border, and seek to create “shock and awe” that will reverberate around the country. This article examines the early-day policies, possible impacts, and likely headwinds.
The Biden administration took significantly more executive actions on immigration than its predecessors, including during Donald Trump's first term, although it has been unable to escape criticism for its response to record irregular arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border. The border overshadowed administration steps to modernize the legal immigration system and rebuild refugee resettlement, as this analysis of Biden's track record explains.
Do large-scale deportations lead to safer communities, better jobs, and less irregular migration? Research shows the answer is less clear than leading voices may suggest. This article provides an overview of research about the impacts of removals on destination and origin countries alike, focusing in particular on deportations from the United States to Latin America.
Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and other migrants have gone directly from the U.S.-Mexico border to New York, Chicago, Denver, and other interior cities, hastening what had previously been a much more gradual process. As arrivals have slowed, the situation has stabilized, and cities have managed to find a new normal. This article explains how cities coped initially and examines the longer-term challenges that remain.
The U.S. immigration enforcement system increasingly depends on other countries to help halt irregular movements through the Americas and accept the return of unauthorized migrants. Foreign governments play a crucial and yet underappreciated role in migration management, and can either aid or frustrate U.S. border-control aims, as this article explores.
Rising tensions between Texas and the federal government have sparked fears of a constitutional crisis after the state deployed its National Guard to prevent the U.S. Border Patrol from conducting operations in a city park in Eagle Pass, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying the “invasion” of migrants triggered the need for action. This article provides an overview of the standoff and the larger context of current and past state-federal tensions over immigration enforcement.
Renewed U.S. state activism on immigration has echoes of the early 2010s, when Arizona’s SB 1070 defined a Republican-led push to increase enforcement that was ultimately muted by the courts and public backlash. Newer strategies rely on a novel array of tactics including migrant busing, litigation, and lawmaking. States are also moving in opposite directions, with some expanding rights for unauthorized immigrants, as this article details.
Operations by Texas, Florida, and Arizona to bus or fly asylum seekers and other migrants to Washington, DC, Martha's Vineyard, and other cities have succeeded in drawing attention to the unprecedented pace of U.S.-Mexico border arrivals. Described by some as political pawns, many migrants say the trips have upsides. Consequences aside, the transport of migrants by Republican governors raises the question whether a new era has begun: state-on-state fights over immigration.
The adoption of immigration measures by state and local governments can affect the sense of belonging not just for immigrants but also for the U.S. born, with impacts on individuals’ wellbeing, their engagement with others, and political participation. As the number of subfederal immigration measures has proliferated in recent years, research suggests this growth could have wider-ranging repercussions than commonly understood.
U.S. immigration arrests have declined to the lowest level in years. Going forward, new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidelines could further shape how authorities arrest and deport unauthorized immigrants and noncitizens who have committed crimes. This article describes how the Biden administration prosecutorial discretion guidance marks a sharp turn from the approach taken by the Trump administration.
After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 the U.S. immigration system was retooled to have a strong national security focus. This restructuring had dramatic effects on government operations and resource allocations, not to mention on the lives of immigrants and the U.S. born alike. Twenty years on from 9/11, this article examines the changes put in place or accelerated as a result of the attacks.
Texas seems set to become chief antagonist to President Joe Biden’s immigration agenda. This article explores Governor Greg Abbott's plans to build new barriers along the border, use state and local law enforcement to carry out arrests of unauthorized immigrants, and strip licensing from federally contracted shelters housing unaccompanied children.
President Joe Biden has grand ambitions to reshape the U.S. immigration system, but his administration has run into early stumbling blocks in rolling back the strict enforcement regime of his predecessor. Administrative resistance, a tangled web of legal agreements signed by the Trump administration, and anxieties about a possible uptick in immigrants and asylum seekers at the border have posed early challenges to Biden’s agenda.
