The US has had a difficult yet fruitful historical relationship with immigration. Of course, the Europeans were immigrants themselves into the Americas and had few qualms in treating Native Americans as subhuman and violently seizing their lands. The first European immigrants into British America, Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, were prejudiced against European Quakers and as a new nation in 1789, the US combined a moral compromise with economic need to justify the legal continuation of the importation of African slaves until 1808 and then clandestinely until the Civil War in 1860. Catholic families from Ireland and Italy, Japanese and Chinese laborers, Mexicans incorporated via the territorial conquest of half of Mexico, and freed slaves and their descendants all contributed to the booming industrialization and agricultural expansion even while suffering social ostracism and economic exploitation.
To its overall benefit, and to its shame from many perspectives, immigration continues to be a fundamental necessity for the country. Contemporary demographic trends created by falling birth rates, smaller family size and people living longer now produce serious challenges beyond simply economic growth. Migrants even keep rural communities (from which local youth flee and which tend to support the radical right wing policies of Donald Trump) afloat as they move in and generate economic activity. In sum, undocumented migrants contribute taxes (they do pay income, payroll, property, sales and other taxes) and stimulate local economies.
US citizens, however, and not only those from families who immigrated long ago but even recent immigrants, struggle with a desire to limit newcomers while nevertheless meeting the needs of the economy. Geography and their own economic, social and political failures at home render Caribbean basin Latin American countries important sources of those labor flows. The failure of immigration reforms to keep pace with evolving challenges indicate that, beyond Presidential visions, both legislators and society at large must better manage a nation with a diverse population.
Evolving and inadequate US policy, 2008-2024
The last three presidents (Barak Obama 2009-2016, Donald Trump 2017-2020 and Joseph Biden 2021-2024) struggled unsuccessfully to develop national legislation in line with new demographic realities at home and abroad and relied on Executive actions which could be (and in some cases have been) overturned by subsequent Presidents. Although the specifics of their proposals differed, especially between Obama/Biden and Trump I, the underlying domestic and international pressures led each to adopt deportation as a key element. Obama deported more people but created new pathways for resident undocumented children to remain (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA), Trump I implemented draconian measures such as separating children from families upon apprehension at the border but saw judges scale back many of these efforts, and Biden began denouncing deportation as a policy tool but in his last year has fallen back on it as a necessary tool.
Even more so than in 2016, Trump has set high expectations for his second term across all issues of concern to a US population fearful of the future at home and abroad. He has emphasized and stimulated that fear since his failed reelection campaign in 2020, increasing his vote total by some 2.7 million and winning the popular vote this time.
Read also: The illegal immigration issue as a focus of the presidential race
Trump’s successful campaign rhetoric sets out an immigration agenda even tougher than that of his first administration to reduce legal migration and deport “millions of illegals”. His supporters, including a growing number of Hispanics, expect that he will deliver because they fear the fact of immigration. Their anticipation is high as Trump selects people for his team who were involved in designing, implementing and supporting his previous anti-immigration efforts (Tom Homan and Stephan Miller) and hear him discuss using the US military in support of police and border patrol mass detentions.
People are also aware of his appointment of scores of federal judges whose primary qualification was support of Trump and a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 which permits Executive actions to go forward while they are being contested in the lower courts. Finally, a growing number of state governments are utilizing their own resources to arrest people for deportation.
Trump II’s challenges
Trump has made immigration a more complex domestic political issue linking into all of the different issues (inflation, crime, trade, drugs, employment, race, etc.) that created the coalition of voters supporting his candidacy despite rejecting his extreme rhetoric and personal behavior. The tension among what he wants to do with immigration and his other goals will produce significant disagreements among his cabinet and undermine his ability to lower inflation, strengthen the economy and raise the standard of living for the middle and working classes.
Trump’s immigration focus is not just on undocumented migrants, he also seeks to make legal immigration more difficult and potentially reduce it by reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers, use ideological screenings for immigrants and eliminate birthright citizenship. He would also dramatically reduce the number of work visas and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program which provides temporary refuge for people fleeing specifically named countries. Wall Street and his high-tech partisans, however, seek to expand, not just maintain, their ability to recruit skilled professionals from around the world.
Trump has already been getting negative feedback on his promised increase of tariffs across the board because of their direct and immediate impact on inflation. One has to remember that it was the pocketbook issue (“are the prices at the stores at which you shop lower than they were four years ago”) that was a key factor in Biden’s popular demise, despite the significant slowing of inflation. Because the construction, food processing, restaurants and hospitality sectors significantly employ undocumented workers, mass deportations will contribute to rising prices.
The financial costs of locating, housing, processing and deporting the volume of people promised by Trump will also strain the US budget, requiring either cutting expenses elsewhere or adding to the national debt via declarations of a national emergency. The possibility of political retribution by the electorate will worry the Republican Party prior to the 2026 midterm elections.
Trump’s immigration crackdown can also unintendedly fuel further destabilization of sending countries. The economic problems in Latin America’s circum-Caribbean region have been decades in the making; although the US has contributed to them, they also have deep domestic roots. Washington has an important role to play in reducing the intensity of the push drivers, but the failure of Obama and Biden’s efforts clearly indicate that domestic drivers play significant roles. Trumps policies, unfortunately, reject the notion that the US. has any responsibility for the problems or to contribute any support except for encouraging presidential power to implement ‘mano dura’ policies and the further opening of their countries to US investors.
Remittances sent home by migrant workers tend to go directly to families and to support small businesses. This is a more effective way of supporting local economies and diminishing the economic incentives to migrate than official aid that is appropriated by corrupt governments and local elites. The economic consequences of declines in remittances, which in 2024 range from 3% in Mexico to almost 28% of GDP in Honduras, will certainly negatively impact a social fabric already destabilized by organized crime, further delegitimize incapable governments in the eyes of their citizens and drive more people to seek refuge and opportunity in the US despite Trump.
Early reactions from Latin America
Reaction from governments in Mexico and Central America which, along with Haiti and Venezuela, constitute the key sending countries from Latin America has been muted and cautious. The countries have experience with Trump I’s threats and policy implementation and are aware of the increased legal authority judges appointed by him have given the Presidency and his powerful electoral victory. Even left wing governments in Honduras and Mexico quickly communicated congratulations to Trump, and expressed a willingness to work with Washington in a context characterized by respect for sovereignty and human dignity. Given their own domestically vulnerable situations they are not anxious for a fight before Trump even assumes office.
Given their weak bargaining positions vis-à-vis the US and their own disagreements, these Latin American governments attempt to distinguish their specific relationship with the US rather than organize a common response. El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele reached out prior to Trump’s electoral victory to Marco Rubio (now Secretary of State-designate) and Elon Musk (now co-leader of Trump’s committee to downsize the government) to showcase his hardline success in reducing crime. Panama has been touting its success in reducing migrant flows northward through the Darien Gap with US funding to seize and deport migrants. Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum has spoken with Trump multiple times over the past few weeks, emphasizing the mutual benefits of their relationship and the labor and tax contributions of Mexican workers in the US.
Read also: The Sheinbaum moment and Mexico’s opportunity
She privately and publicly highlights that under her predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and now her, Mexico has limited the ability of migrant caravans to cross the country in route to the border with the US. In response to Trump’s discussion of tariff increases, Sheinbaum notes that Mexico could respond by increasing its own tariffs and, given the integration of their two economies, both countries would suffer.
But the president-elect has quickly responded to these overtures that he intends to link tariffs, migration and security issues, thus signaling a hardline transactional strategy for his foreign policy.