Trump’s draconian plans to curb mass undocumented migration

Donald Trump spoke to the adoring masses at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week. Keir Starmer spoke with European leaders at Blenheim Palace. There’s a connection. They both spoke about mass undocumented migration. There’s also a disconnect – their tone, and their policies.

The two men may have exchanged friendly words on the phone following the assassination attempt on Trump, but they are far apart on measures to deal with one of the most pressing issues in both countries. The new UK government’s plan, laid out here, is sketchy but tougher than proposals by previous Labour administrations. The word “tough” is relative. It’s worth contrasting Labour’s plan with what Trump is proposing if he returns to the White House in 2025.

The US would see the “largest deportation effort in American history” to “stop the migrant invasion” as described in capital letters by the platform adopted at the convention this week. This was also sketchy, but a lot of detail has been given by Trump staffers and by Stephen Miller who put together his first-term immigration policies and will probably rejoin him if there’s a second term.

The plan is to round up millions of undocumented immigrants in workplace raids and detain them in vast sprawling camps before deporting them, some without due process. During the presidential debate last month, Trump claimed there are 18 million such people. A government estimate this year suggests the figure is about 11 million. Either way, that’s a lot of people, a lot of camps, a lot of money, and a lot of legal battles.

The camps would be built in open land near the Mexican border. If Congress refuses funds, Trump intends to use money from the military budget as he did to help extend the wall with Mexico in his first term. The military would build the camps and be deployed for border patrol duties under the terms of the Insurrection Act. The White House would also invoke a law from 1798 allowing summary deportation of people who have engaged in “predatory incursions.” Foreign students who participate in protests in support of groups such as Hamas will have their visas cancelled.

To help prevent more arrivals, consular officials abroad will be ordered to take a more critical view on asylum requests. Trump’s first term ban on people arriving from particular countries (usually Muslim majority) was cancelled on President Biden’s first day in the White House. It is likely to be re-instated in some form on day one if there’s a Trump second term.

There would be numerous legal challenges to these policies, but the Trump team learned a lot about the levers of power during his first term and will be better placed to use them if they return to power. They would also be helped by the fact the Supreme Court is considered to be the most conservative for decades. Numerous federal departments will have to get behind the plan including the Department of Health, Justice Department, the Pentagon, State Department, and the Bureau of Land Management.

Even if they cleared legal hurdles, the policies would be hugely difficult to implement and incredibly expensive. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has about 20,000 employees who are already overworked. The plan is to supplement them with the National Guard from Republican-run states. Even so, the annual budget of roughly $420 million for deportations will have to see a massive increase, probably into the billions of dollars. Critics say the government can’t afford it, and that mass deportations are unjust, un-American, and will damage the service industries and agricultural sector. Supporters argue that Americans will see their wages go up amid full employment.

Even if Biden wins a second term, his more liberal approach to the issue is likely to change, although not to Trump’s draconian levels. Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the crisis. Record numbers of migrants are arriving at the southern border with Latin Americans now being joined by Africans who have made their way to what they hope will be the “promised land”. Last year, there were 2.5 million “encounters” as officials call them.

The majority are from six countries: Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Mexico. The push factors in all of them are similar: climate change, poverty, drugs, and armed conflict although climate change is more prominent in some than others. In these circumstances the pull factors of the US are obvious.

Cubans flee government oppression and a wrecked economy. Those taking the Mexican route fly into Nicaragua first because they do not require visas and make their way northwards. In Colombia, it’s a combination of drug gangs, extortion, armed conflict between militia and government forces, and poverty. Mexico is visa-free for Colombians and so those who want to leave can fly into Mexico City. About eight million Venezuelans have fled their country in the last 10 years, leaving behind the economic wreck and repression of Nicolás Maduro’s Presidency. El Presidente is about to win another six-year term in “elections” in two week’s time.

Before being ravaged by the drug gangs over the past decade, Ecuador was among the safest countries in Latin America. Now, after becoming a transit point for cocaine, it has the highest murder rate. Corruption is endemic. Guatemala has some of these problems but is also suffering from persistent drought. Many of its coffee growers, along with others in Central America, are forced down from the high ground to seek work in areas where subsistence farmers are already struggling. Some then cross the border into Mexico, which is also struggling with drought, a drug epidemic, gang violence, and more.

These are the places people are coming from. And these are the places Trump will try to send them back to. The Obama (second term), Trump, and Biden presidencies roughly deported the same number of people. If he wins in November, Trump will try and change that.

People will keep coming, but in what numbers? If “The Donald” goes full Trump on the plans, Prime Minister Starmer will not be the only foreign leader watching to see if the push back becomes stronger than the pull.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life