How the deportation machine was built | America, Actually

Immigration, once a strong issue for Donald Trump, has seen a shift in public opinion, with Americans expressing disapproval of his recent actions. However, the complexities of the U.S. immigration system extend far beyond a single administration, rooted in policies and developments spanning several presidencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were established after 9/11, shifting the focus of immigration enforcement towards anti-terrorism. This led to a highly funded federal agency tasked with protecting the country from terrorists through immigration enforcement and deportations, despite the limited connection between undocumented workers and anti-terrorism. Prior to this, concerns about porous borders often led to discussions about legal pathways to status, a conversation that has since diminished. While Trump's administration initially pursued aggressive, public enforcement tactics, the public backlash, such as in Minnesota, led to a shift towards less visible, but equally effective, methods of deportation. Stephen Miller, a key advisor, is noted for his relentless pursuit of every possible avenue to deport people and seal the border, viewing public pushback as an obstacle to overcome rather than a reason to change course. Public opinion on deportations is complex and often contradictory. Americans tend to oppose violent public displays by ICE but are more divided on the general concept of deportation. This contradiction is partly attributed to a lack of public understanding about the immigration system, particularly the limited legal pathways available for many long-term residents. While many Americans support deporting those who entered illegally, they often oppose deporting individuals who have lived in the U.S. for many years, have no criminal record, have U.S. citizen children, or are essential workers. There's a general desire for order at the border and a dislike for chaotic scenes. The discussion around "abolishing ICE" highlights a divide. While some advocates suggest immigration enforcement could be handled by a different agency, the practicalities of reorganizing a highly funded federal agency with a quarter of a million employees are significant. Senator Ruben Gallego's stance that "we need an immigration force that deports bad people" reflects a public sentiment that believes in some level of immigration enforcement. However, critics argue that ICE's core mission is flawed due to its confusing and contradictory mandate, leading officers to use military-like funding and equipment to arrest individuals in everyday jobs. Past attempts at reform, such as setting enforcement priorities to protect those without criminal records, have been implemented and then reversed by different administrations, highlighting the need for Congress to codify such measures into law. The Lake and Riley Act, which expanded mandatory detention for undocumented individuals, passed with support from some Democratic senators, including Ruben Gallego. This vote reflects a perceived "lack of position" among Democrats on immigration, often oscillating between criticizing Trump's enforcement methods (even when similar tactics were used under Democratic administrations) and voting for restrictive legislation in response to perceived shifts in public opinion. The underlying principle for many Democrats appears to be opposition to Donald Trump's actions rather than a coherent immigration strategy. The long-standing brokenness of the immigration system is attributed to several factors. Democrats often feel pressured to appear "tough" on immigration to counter criticisms of being soft on crime or open to lawlessness. More cynically, there's a political calculation: undocumented immigrants cannot vote, offering little incentive for Democrats to champion their cause when the political cost of doing so is high. Americans also tend to underestimate their personal interconnectedness with the immigration system, failing to see how deportation campaigns affect their communities, churches, and local economies. This makes immigration a lower priority for voters, even if they are sympathetic to the issue. A significant gap in the political conversation is the lack of legal pathways to the United States, especially for jobs often filled by undocumented workers in sectors like construction, hospitality, and domestic work. There are very few visas available for these roles, despite the high demand for labor. Balancing border security with the creation of more legal pathways is seen as a smart approach, as historical crackdowns on the border have often failed to overcome the economic draw from the other side. From a local perspective in Arizona, Trump's deportation tactics have led to a significant increase in arrests, particularly street-level arrests. This has spurred community-wide rapid response networks and forced institutions like school districts to develop plans for ICE encounters. This heightened activity has fostered a new level of community organization, particularly in the bicultural border communities of Southern Arizona. While national public opinion often differentiates between support for border security and opposition to Trump's deportation ramp-up, the impact of enforcement in local communities is much less abstract, with residents directly experiencing the consequences through the apprehension of neighbors and family members. Arizona's political landscape is complex, often depicted as a battleground state. While deep political divisions exist, the challenges of living in the region (e.g., water and heat) often necessitate cooperation across political lines. Arizona is also characterized as a "libertarian state" where people value personal freedom, and its rapidly growing and changing population contributes to its evolving political identity. In the 2024 election, immigration and affordability were key issues in Arizona. While Trump's win might suggest immigration "trumped everything else," it also reflects a drop-off in support for Democrats, rather than solely a pull towards the right. Emerging Democratic leaders in the state are bringing new energy, but it remains unclear if this will lead to a significant shift in Democratic politics. Beyond immigration, a major local issue in Arizona is the proposal for large-scale data centers, particularly in Southern Arizona. These proposals have galvanized strong opposition due to concerns about water consumption and how local government communicates with the public about such developments. This issue has made people more active political actors, highlighting the consequences of development and growth in a resource-scarce region.