Photo via KQED
***
In mid-October, a federal immigration raid hit New York city’s Chinatown—specifically, Canal Street. This raid targeted undocumented West African immigrants, who sell counterfeit products (an illegal act regardless of immigration status) within the neighborhood. As a result, nine vendors have been arrested along with four protesters. Many New York City officials were quick to condemn the raid, but President Donald Trump’s administration is planning to implement these tactics more regularly, as more raids like Canal Street are on the way. This kind of approach to handling illegal immigration is something that is only going to become more common as more policies are being introduced that share this harsh approach. These immigration policies being introduced for the sake of “state security” raise many questions. However, a larger question can be asked about the nature of these immigration policies: how does the shift under this current administration in regards to immigration policy connect to this new political era that is rooted in political gain and ideological signaling?
It has been no surprise that during the course of this administration, the tactics taken to address immigration were changed. Illegal immigration has been a major concern, especially for President Trump. It was a big focus of not only his most recent campaign, but also his previous campaign. However, with the policies being proposed and implemented, refugees and migrants are no longer treated as a humanitarian concern but are rather being used as a means to symbolize ideological power. More specifically, how this crackdown on immigration is meant to shape the discourse surrounding the status of illegal immigrants in the country and what methods are considered permissible. This shift in immigration policy also reveals a larger change in national identity within our political landscape. This shift is what has made immigration become so morally polarizing, where the approaches to tackling immigration have become seemingly more harsh.These changes in policies are not happening for no reason, but are instead part of a larger moral and political shift.
Before delving into current policies that represent this shift, it’s important to look at how immigration has been treated in the country in the past. Reasons for immigration can be viewed as humanitarian issues. America rhetorically viewed itself as a nation of refuge. The aftermath of the Second World War resulted in policies like the Displaced Persons Act (1948) and the Refugee Act (1980). These acts helped implement legal frameworks for protecting people who were fleeing persecution and needed a safe haven. With this, the Temporary Protected Status serves as an immigration status for people who are coming from countries experiencing crises, and allows them temporary work authorization and protection, delaying the deportation process. These instances help illustrate how the U.S. was more open in terms of immigration policy and took a more humanitarian approach. To give a comparison, former President Barack Obama, pushed for centrist policies around immigration, and managed to deport illegal immigrants but still extend humanitarian aspects into his immigration policy. More specifically, during Obama’s first term he implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allowed undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children, safely apply for renewable two year periods of deferred action from deportation—allowing them to remain in the country and apply for work permits. This approach helps humanize illegal immigrants, especially children who usually end up in the US on their parents’ accord and not their own. Currently, the case is starkly different. Immigration policy, which once aimed to promote fairness, is now instead used to repel it.
Just earlier this year, it was decided that the TPS for Venezuelan immigrants would be revoked, taking effect in early November. A Supreme Court case in early October determined that Venezuela no longer meets the conditions to be considered for TPS. Instead of extending help for people escaping dictatorship and experiencing a broken economy, this revocation was implemented, sending a larger message that the suffering of these immigrants is not the responsibility of the American government. The U.S. being an asylum is no longer a duty but is instead seen as a liability.
Another development with illegal immigration is the introduction of the “Stop Illegal Entry Act” to the U.S. Congress. This act would target illegal immigrants who try to re-enter the United States illegally again, after already being removed. The bill proposes harsher sentences such as longer sentencing depending on the person’s criminal record. This increase in criminalization ignores case-by-case reasons for illegal re-entry. Additionally, reasons for illegal re-entry do not always necessarily entail criminal defiance. Many people attempt illegal re-entry for family reunification or because of desperate economic measures. This approach erases the human reasons behind migration.
The larger question at hand is: what are the reasons for this shift taking place? It is a combination of a lot of different factors, but it can generally be connected to the rise in social conservatism, and the tendency for this administration to use legislation as a means to consolidate power. Much of recent legislation changes can be drawn back to the creation of Project 2025, and both legal and illegal immigration is no exception. The largest goals revolving around immigration have succeeded with the passing of the big beautiful bill as well. In this bill, there is an expansion of US immigration detention centers, which have been known to be intentionally harsh. By allowing these conditions to prevail, the government reassures the public that order and security are being restored, even at the cost of ethical action. In this way, the system prevails as it builds power through pain and disregards the well being of people who are being affected. The bill also quadruples ICE’s detention budget and allows a 32 million dollar increase in agents and operations related to detention and enforcement where these funds would be used in harmful ways. They could potentially increase the probability of rampant racial profiling, and increase violent immigration raids. There has also been a shift in the legislation of legal immigration. There has been an increase in using biometrics and surveillance in regards to people applying for visas, specifically for immigration benefits to tracking. This would allow not only the use of fingerprints, but eye scans, hand prints, and DNA to allow the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to engage in “continuous immigration vetting,” increasing the automated surveillance of these immigrations. Another change is that there have been new visa restrictions that would eliminate “duration status” of foreign students, researchers and foreign media and instead instill a cap of four years. Before, they did not have to repeatedly apply and renew their visas, but this would change that, and force them to navigate the process of constantly reapplying and renewing. These new policies reflect a clear shift in how this administration is tackling immigration as a restriction and deterrence based issue. Deterrence-based policies “fail by design” and serve more to demonstrate toughness and power, rather than to successfully mitigate immigration. Acts like family separation and deportation raids function as a means to display political strength rather than solve structural problems.
U.S. immigration policy has shifted as a means to represent power, where cruelty is used rather than tactics that would bolster human needs. The separation of families, the increase in detention centers, and immigration raids show that suffering and fear are becoming legitimate political strategies. Instrumental cruelty is part of a larger pattern in which policy decisions prioritize political gain over genuine empathy. How the United States treats the illegal immigrants reveals a change in national moral values and challenges whether compassion or cruelty will take the lead in future legislation.
***
This article was edited by Sidney Blasco and Sophie Reilly.
John Virgil Aton 
Camila Miranda 
Catherine Topps