Chapter 5.7: Immigration in the Age of Trump 2.0 — Theater, Threats, and the Policy Vacuum
The Immigration Saga Continues: Trump's DOJ Targets Sanctuary States Amid a Calmer Border
As I continue to explore the complexities of America's immigration system in this series on fairnessmatters.vote, it's evident that the issue remains a microcosm of our broader political dysfunction. In July 2023, I published Chapter 3.4 | Immigration, where I delved into the broken nature of our immigration system, highlighting the lack of consensus on fixes amid polarized positions that have pushed us toward dangerous flashpoints.
Let me start with something that we must all acknowledge when considering the subject of Immigration: unless you're a descendant of indigenous people, you're an immigrant or a descendant of one. From that vantage point, I believe we need a common sense approach to immigration with strong border security as part of a comprehensive immigration strategy including legal pathways to citizenship that serve America's interests.
In 2023, I criticized the duopoly for moving to extremes—the GOP for inflaming its base with stunts like migrant busing and obstructing bipartisan deals, and Democrats for sometimes lying about the surge while failing to lead effectively under Biden. I also pointed to global push factors beyond any single administration's control.
Biden’s Legacy Revisited
Reflecting now in August 2025, much of what I wrote here still holds true: The politicization tied to culture wars persists, and the sabotage of the 2024 bipartisan Border Act by Trump allies exemplifies how party interests often trump national needs. However, time has revealed nuances—and outright errors—in my analysis that merit deeper scrutiny. For starters, my warnings of an escalating constitutional crisis, like the Texas standoff potentially leading to "civil war" tensions, proved overstated; those flashpoints dissipated as Trump 2.0 aligned federal and “red state” enforcement, resolving conflicts without the dramatic showdown I feared. Predictably, however, the clashes have now shifted to “blue states” as they resist Trump in his second term.
More critically, I underweighted the influence of U.S. policy signals on migration flows. Deterrence via enforcement and diplomatic pressure had a far stronger causal role than I emphasized or understood in the summer of 2023. This became evident in early 2024 when the Biden’s DHS announced broader expedited removals and expanded deportation flights, especially to Venezuela and Central America, and Mexico agreed to accept more returns under diplomatic pressure. The effect was immediate: daily averages fell from 10,000+ in late 2023 to around 5,000 by spring 2024. By June 2024, encounters dropped to ~84,000—down from the ~302,000 peak of December 2023—marking the lowest level of Biden’s presidency. These measures, combined with the restrictive asylum rules and CBP One app processing, finally began bringing crossings under control, but the timing was too late to change the narrative of failure.
My defense of Biden's approach, while aiming for balance, now reads as overly supportive of what I believe history will view as a failed policy. In my prior chapter, I pushed back against the "open border" narrative, noting record apprehensions—over 10 million encounters from FY2021-2024—as signs of an overwhelmed, not porous, system. Policies like prolonging Title 42 and parole expansions for hundreds of thousands showed efforts at balance. However, the administration's reluctance to exercise fuller executive authority or forge lasting reforms allowed surges to crest at ~302,000 in December 2023, burdening cities and fueling division. Progressives within the party, including asylum officers, voiced dismay over echoes of Trump-era harshness, while the GOP hammered "catch and release." I perceived record apprehensions under his watch as evidence of effort, but they masked leadership shortfalls that overwhelmed resources and strained public trust.
To be fair, as I emphasized then, Biden was largely following the laws (regardless of the fact that the laws were outdated and unpopular), including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 1952 (as amended), the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, 1986), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 1996, as well as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 (for a brief overview of the history of immigration laws in the US click here). These laws mandate processing asylum claims for those who present themselves at the border—often leading to releases pending hearings due to massive backlogs. These laws, designed for a different era with far lower volumes, haven't been updated in decades, turning legal obligations into political liabilities and highlighting the urgent need for congressional reform that never materialized.
And of course there is public sentiment which is ever evolving. In a Gallup poll conducted in June 2023 (and published July 13, 2023), 68% of Americans considered immigration a good thing for the country today, while 27% considered it a bad thing. A June 2025 Gallup poll ironically shows that 79% of Americans now see immigration as beneficial to the country, up substantially, amid recognition of economic contributions, even as dissatisfaction with handling lingers. These shifts invite fresh reflections: Have Trump’s aggressive tactics moved sentiment against his policies?
This era exemplifies partisan flips. Take Bernie Sanders: In 2007, he opposed comprehensive reform, labeling guest worker programs a "Koch brothers proposal" to flood the market with cheap labor, depressing wages for American workers. By the Biden years, Sanders had evolved, criticizing the administration's restrictions as akin to "indentured servitude" and pushing for broader protections and pathways— a shift from economic protectionism to humanitarian emphasis, mirroring the Democratic Party's broader pivot. Republicans, too, have oscillated: Trump decried family separations in 2024 campaigns yet reinstated similar deterrence. Biden's June 2024 curbs began reductions, but his overall approval on immigration sank to 30-35%, a testament to leadership shortfalls amid the duopoly's blame game.
While enforcement can deliver quick wins, the duopoly's hypocrisy—flipping scripts for political gain—perpetuates a vacuum where real reform remains elusive, and my initial optimism about consensus overlooked how entrenched the extremes have become.
Bondi vs. Ferguson: A Case Study in Political Theater
The latest episode in this ongoing drama pits U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi against Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, highlighting how immigration enforcement becomes fodder for partisan posturing. In mid-August 2025, Bondi dispatched letters to sanctuary jurisdictions, including Washington, California, and cities like New York and Boston, demanding they repeal policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Citing statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1324 on harboring undocumented immigrants, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 - Concealing Person from Arrest, 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 - Obstruction of Proceedings Before Departments, Agencies, and Committees, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 - Communication Between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. § 1644 - Communication Between State and Local Government Agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. § 1372 - Program to Collect Information Relating to Nonimmigrant Foreign Students and Other Exchange Program Participants. The letters threatened prosecutions of officials and cuts to federal grants if compliance wasn't met swiftly. This echoes tactics from Trump 1.0, where similar threats aimed to pressure blue states but often faltered in court.
Ferguson responded in a press conference on August 19, surrounded by state leaders and advocates, rejecting the demands as "shameful" and without legal merit. He stressed that Washington's laws—barring local police from immigration status inquiries or ICE detainers absent criminal warrants—foster community trust, enabling immigrants to engage with law enforcement without deportation fears, ultimately enhancing public safety. "We will not be intimidated," he asserted, pledging a court fight. Similar pushback came from California's Gavin Newsom and others, reminding us of the anti-commandeering doctrine from Supreme Court cases like Printz v. United States (1997), which shields states from being drafted into federal enforcement.
Yet, this confrontation underscores the duopoly's hypocrisy. Republicans, who once decried federal overreach in other arenas, now wield the DOJ aggressively, potentially politicizing it in ways that erode the rule of law they championed (as Trump himself put it, "The rule of law matters!"). Democrats, meanwhile, defend sanctuary policies that promote integration but were slower to address border strains under Biden, flipping from past positions where figures like I described in Chapter 5.6, Barack Obama oversaw record deportations. It's theater that distracts from shared goals, much like the migrant busing stunts I critiqued before.
Trump 2.0: Policy Crushed the Numbers
Expanding upon Biden’s 2024 shift in policy, Trump has followed through on his campaign promises implementing aggressive policies, enforcement and rhetoric which have yielded stark results, yet not without ironies. His immediate steps included demanding a national emergency, revived "Remain in Mexico," broader removals, and detentions—have plummeted encounters dramatically even considering Biden’s tightening of policies in early 2024.
The numbers tell the story:
June 2024: 87,606 encounters.
June 2025: 6,070 encounters — a 93% decline, with none released into the interior.
July 2024: ~56,000 encounters.
July 2025: 4,600 encounters — a 91.8% decline, the lowest in CBP’s recorded history.
This contrasts sharply with Biden’s overwhelmed system, proving policy levers like deterrence matter immensely. Yet successes come with caveats: mass deportations are ramping up (~150,000 arrests since inauguration), economic disruptions loom in labor-dependent sectors, and humanitarian concerns persist. Migrant deaths, particularly among Mexicans and Central Americans, have reportedly doubled for some groups in early 2025.
But here's the duopoly's mirror: Republicans, who lambasted Biden's "failure to lead," now risk overreach, threatening economic sectors reliant on immigrant labor and inviting humanitarian critiques. Democrats, once critical of Trump's walls and bans, now decry his deportations while having overseen releases during surges. The calmer border is a policy win, but without addressing labor mismatches, it echoes Trump's first term's "paper wall"—low legal immigration without sustainable fixes.
The Policy Vacuum Continues
Once more, we're in a policy void, as both parties prioritize party dogma over equilibrium. Trump 2.0's focus on enforcement, while “effective” short-term, sidesteps legal pathways and integration, much like Biden's reactive stance neglected proactive security. Sanctuary threats like Bondi's letters will spark lawsuits, distracting from reforms, while Democratic resistance highlights states' rights—ironic given past federal expansions under Obama. The bipartisan opportunities I mourned, like the 2024 bipartisan border bill, remain lost to the pendulum's swing, leaving a the system unreformed and ripe for partisan exploitation.
When I penned my initial immigration chapter, I cautioned that immigration was a tragedy born of Washington's dysfunction, a flashpoint risking deeper rifts. Today, it's evolved into a perpetual stage prop, where gestures eclipse governance. Bondi's threats to Ferguson aren't purely about law; they're performative, much like Abbott's busing or Biden's assurances of a "secure" border amid records. And consider the hypocrisy: Bernie Sanders once decried immigration surges as a Koch ploy to undercut workers, yet under Biden, he pivoted to decry restrictions as exploitative—emblematic of how positions bend to party winds.
The crisis endures: Asylum backlogs top 3.4 million, stranding lives. Humanitarian tolls rise, with migrant deaths doubling for some groups in early 2025, per reports from Mexico and border sectors. Cities grapple with costs—New York City's $5 billion spent on migrant aid, projected to hit $10 billion by year's end—while federal expenses exceed $150 billion. Trust erodes, with polls showing high immigration support (79%) but low confidence in leaders—only 30% back reduced levels, down from 55%. "Solutions" like threats or denials are crafted for applause, not outcomes. For more, explore Gallup's poll, TRAC's backlog stats, The Guardian on deaths, and NYC's updates.
Until Congress acts, we’ll keep oscillating between the Democratic Party’s overwhelmed openness and the GOP’s harsh deterrence. Both are political calculations. Neither is a durable solution.
What a Modern System Should Look Like
To transcend this, we must envision a reformed system grounded in fairness and pragmatism, drawing from insights across the aisle. We need solutions over soundbites and patriotism over partisanship. This framework aligns with expert recommendations from think tanks like the Migration Policy Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, striking a balance between security, humanitarian concerns, and economic needs while avoiding extremes. While no policy is universally "best" due to evolving global events and political realities, this blueprint addresses core flaws like outdated laws and labor mismatches, echoing successes from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act but updating them for challenges like climate migration and tech advancements. It could be even stronger with additions like root-cause investments abroad ($10-20 billion in aid to stabilize sending countries), climate provisions, interior enforcement reforms (e.g., E-Verify with privacy safeguards), and bipartisan oversight.
Smart Border Security: Emphasize manpower, drones, sensors, and rigorous port-of-entry inspections to intercept drugs and crossings, beyond mere symbolic walls—efficiently safeguarding sovereignty without wasteful gestures. This is cost-effective and evidence-based: Drones and AI have shown 80-90% effectiveness in pilots for detecting crossings, per CBP reports, while ports catch 90%+ of fentanyl. However, it could integrate physical barriers in high-traffic urban zones for added deterrence and include AI predictive analytics plus U.S.-Mexico partnerships, areas where past aid ($4 billion since 2021) has yielded mixed results.
Asylum Reform: Accelerate adjudications with more judges, upholding protections for true refugees while curbing abuses through stricter credible fear thresholds, reducing backlogs humanely. Vital for the 3.4 million-case backlog as of July 2025, this upholds treaties but cuts delays (averaging 4-5 years) by potentially 50%, per Migration Policy Institute estimates—only 15-20% of claims succeed, but delays encourage frivolous ones. Risks include denying valid claims if thresholds are too high; add trauma-informed interviews and independent oversight to mitigate bias.
Legal Pathways: Broaden guest worker visas for essential sectors and merit-based options for skilled talent, alongside humanitarian avenues, balancing economic needs with compassion. This tackles shortages—e.g., expanding H-2A/H-2B could add $10-15 billion to GDP yearly—while requiring wage floors to protect U.S. workers and visa portability to curb exploitation. A con: Merit shifts might disadvantage lower-skilled migrants; cap them to maintain diversity.
Integration of the Undocumented: Provide earned legalization for long-term contributors, Dreamers, and families—tied to taxes, clean records, and civic engagement—to harness their value rather than expel it. For ~11 million (including 800,000 Dreamers), this boosts economies (they pay $80 billion+ in taxes) and reduces crime, per Center for American Progress studies showing 15-20% wage gains post-legalization. Politically risky as "amnesty," so phase in over 5-10 years with community service; prioritize mixed-status families (4.4 million U.S.-citizen kids).
Strategic Admissions: Favor high-skill entrants in fields like medicine, tech, and science, ensuring America retains its innovative edge amid demographic shifts. Immigrants founded 55% of U.S. unicorns; this addresses 100,000+ nurse shortages. Limit to 20-30% of visas to avoid brain drain abroad, and pair with U.S. worker retraining for equity.
This isn't "open borders" or "shut the gates"—it's a balanced framework that secures our nation, honors dignity, and bolsters our future, if only the duopoly could compromise. For context, consider the 2024 bipartisan Border Act (S.4361) referenced earlier by Sens. Sinema, Lankford, and Murphy. It overlapped on smart security ($20 billion+ for agents, tech, and ports, plus fentanyl detection) and asylum (raised credible fear standards, 90-day timelines, surge shutdowns at 4,000-5,000 daily encounters). But it lacked broader pathways, integration/legalization (no Dreamer paths), and strategic admissions. Missing: Root causes aid, climate measures, and labor reforms—making it enforcement-heavy, criticized by progressives as too harsh.
It failed twice in the Senate (43-50 in February, 49-43 in May) due solely to politics: Trump urged rejection to deny Biden an electoral "win," calling it a "death wish" and "horrible open borders betrayal." GOP claims: It institutionalized high flows (5,000/day threshold = 1.8 million/year), had loopholes (e.g., minors exempted), funded NGOs, and omitted walls/Remain in Mexico—per Heritage Foundation, entrenching "catch and release." Six Democrats opposed it for restrictiveness.
In reality, it was tougher than past reforms, but strategy overrode substance—your vision fills its gaps for sustainability.
Until Congress acts, we’ll keep oscillating between Biden’s overwhelmed openness and Trump’s harsh deterrence. Both are executive shortcuts. Neither is a durable solution.
In conclusion, the politics of immigration remain as infuriating as ever, a perpetual stage for partisan theater that prioritizes power over progress. Before we buy into the rhetoric of either party's platform, let's ground ourselves in a foundational truth: Throughout history, racist bans and quotas have attempted to close our borders, denying entry to those fleeing horrors—like my own ancestors in the 1930s and 1940s, many of whom perished in the gas chambers of the Holocaust because of such policies. The DNC and RNC have failed to enact comprehensive reform for decades, not due to insurmountable challenges, but because the incentives in our system reward party fealty and pandering to extreme bases in closed primaries. As Seth Stodder, a senior policy adviser on border security under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, noted, "For years, both parties have exchanged accusations about why the other was seemingly unwilling to resolve the problems at the border," with Republicans craving cheap migrant labor for business donors while Democrats face claims of banking on future voters—dogma that's hardened into orthodoxies, even as realities shift. But common sense solutions exist, from smart security and asylum reforms to expanded legal pathways and earned integration. They require us to reject kindergarten-simple answers, stop swallowing the duopoly's propaganda, and demand that extremists on both sides stop controlling the narrative. America is a nation of immigrants—let's honor that by building a system that secures our sovereignty, protects dignity, and strengthens our future through compromise, not conflict.
I leave you with this.
If this resonates, subscribe for more on fairness. What's your view on the duopoly's role? Share below.