Key points:
- Trump’s immigration agenda targets all immigrants, not just the undocumented.
- Temporary visa holders and naturalized citizens face revoked visas and denaturalization threats.
- Historians warn that the current immigration policies echo past injustices.
The Trump administration’s second-term immigration agenda has been billed as a crackdown on so-called “illegal” immigrants. The reality is much broader and much more dangerous.
In 2025, Trump’s policies have swept far beyond the undocumented. Temporary visa holders, asylum seekers, recipients of humanitarian status, lawful permanent residents, and even naturalized citizens have found themselves in the government’s crosshairs.
The result is a sweeping system of exclusion, one that undermines due process and chips away at the core promise of equal protection under the Constitution.
Since January, the administration has moved aggressively to revoke visas from students and workers over minor violations or even social media posts deemed critical of the government. It has gutted humanitarian protections such as Temporary Protected Status, shut down parole programs for multiple nationalities, and created new barriers to asylum.
It has also gone after permanent residents. Green card holders now face subjective vetting based on so-called “anti-American activity” online. The administration has backed legislation to deport lawful residents for old convictions, including DUIs.
Even citizenship itself is under threat. The Department of Justice has been directed to prioritize denaturalization cases, sometimes over paperwork errors.
In January, Trump issued an executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts quickly blocked it, but the message was unmistakable.
As the administration has leaned on obscure legal theories to justify its agenda, Trump’s advisors have floated invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law passed during the John Adams administration, to override due process and accelerate deportations.
Expedited removal — a fast-track deportation procedure once limited to border cases — has been expanded to sweep up people across the interior.
Civil rights groups are fighting back. Legal challenges have slowed some of the administration’s moves, but the scale of enforcement has already changed the landscape.
On July 4, Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — OBBBA — which the National Immigration Law Center describes as a historic rollback of immigrant protections. The law strips lawfully present immigrants of access to health insurance, nutrition assistance, and even the Child Tax Credit. It raises fees across the board for humanitarian applications, putting due process out of reach for many families.
Even more, OBBBA pours billions into detention and deportation. It provides $45 billion for immigrant detention, including family detention, and $75 billion for border militarization, including $47 billion for continued wall construction.
According to The New York Times, deportations surged to nearly 1,500 people a day this summer. ICE has added more than 50 new detention facilities, including private prisons and military bases. Almost all of the increase in arrests, the Times reported, has been among people with no criminal record.
The government is not distinguishing between undocumented and documented, between recent arrivals and longtime residents. It is casting suspicion on entire communities, reducing legal status to a temporary privilege the state can revoke at will.
Unfortunately, this is not as new as we would like to think it is.
After Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the removal and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans. Two-thirds were U.S. citizens. None were ever charged with espionage or sabotage.
As historian Susan Kamei documents in When Can We Go Back to America?, Roosevelt acted despite intelligence reports concluding Japanese Americans posed no security threat. Instead, racist hysteria and economic opportunism drove the mass removal. California agricultural leaders saw Pearl Harbor as their chance to eliminate Japanese American farmers, openly saying they wanted their land.
The legal justification was flimsy. Officials concocted a “legal fiction” that the entire West Coast was a war zone, even though there was no evidence to support it. The Supreme Court upheld the orders in Korematsu v. United States, deferring to claims of “military necessity.” Justice Robert Jackson dissented, warning the ruling left behind “a loaded weapon” for future abuses.
That loaded weapon is now in Trump’s hands.
The echoes are chilling. Then, Japanese Americans lost homes, businesses, and freedom because of ancestry. Today, immigrants of all statuses are being treated as perpetual suspects, their rights contingent on government approval.
Then, the courts failed to stand up to executive overreach. Today, judges are again asked to decide whether expanded expedited removals and denaturalization campaigns will be allowed to stand.
Then, mass incarceration was justified as a temporary emergency. Today, mass detention is funded through 2029, with billions locked in to expand ICE, militarize the border, and normalize indefinite family detention.
The incarceration left lasting scars. Families lost everything overnight.
Survivors carried deep grief, as Representative Robert Matsui, who was born in camp, once asked: “How can a nation founded on principles of individual rights suddenly deny the due process rights of an entire group of people?”
The answer is the same in 2025 as it was in 1942: through fear, prejudice, and unchecked power.
It took more than four decades for Congress to apologize and offer redress. By then, many incarcerees had passed away. Norman Mineta, who entered camp as a boy and later became a Congressman and a Cabinet secretary, insisted America must remember so history would not repeat.
But history is repeating. The lessons of incarceration are being ignored.
What Trump is building is not a system of immigration law but a system of exclusion. It is a system that punishes families for where they were born, strips rights from lawful residents, and even threatens the constitutional bedrock of citizenship itself.
The question is whether Americans will stand by, just as most did in 1942, or whether we will resist now. The voices of survivors warn us that silence is complicity.
As George Santayana famously wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Kamei adds her own corollary: “Those who don’t know our past will find a way to reinvent it”.
Trump has reinvented it. The rest of us must decide if we will let it stand.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
You forgot to mention the risks of asylum seekers being returned to countries where they risk abuse, incarceration, torture and murder. If you don’t understand the importance of asylum laws in America I’ve attached a link to a film about why we have asylum in this country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcYJUOIgH4Y&t=239s
The problem is everyone knows the asylum laws were being abused.
The problem is everyone knows the asylum seekers were being abused.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/577922-new-report-shows-shocking-abuses-of-asylum-seekers-by-us/
Asylum laws are crucial. The system simply needs more resources to process them.
Asylum is also not optional – it’s required under both US and International Law.
The asylum laws were totally being abused.
“During that same period, however, DHS released approximately 853,000 migrants stopped at the southwest border into the United States. Although those migrants are commonly called “asylum-seekers,” these statistics show fewer than 5% are.
That’s not to say that others won’t seek asylum eventually. Most who appear in immigration court will file asylum applications, regardless of whether they fear persecution or torture, because that will allow them to seek work permits and remain here indefinitely.
But many won’t show up. According to the Department of Justice, between FY 2008 and late FY 2019 — when DHS vigorously used expedited removal — 83% of migrants stopped at the border who claimed a fear of harm were cleared to make asylum claims in court. Fewer than 17% of them received asylum. By contrast, more than 45% never applied for asylum, and 32.5% were ordered removed in absentia when they failed to appear in court.”
https://cis.org/Oped/Most-illegal-immigrants-do-not-qualify-US-asylum
Even if we grant that point, this isn’t fixing the problem, it’s causing a whole bunch more problems.
The bipartisan immigration reform bill of 2024 would have substantially overhauled the asylum system.
It would have required “clear and convincing” evidence of likely persecution in the home country. A very small percentage of applicants would meet that threshold. All of the others would have been subject to immediate removal and deportation.
Asylum officers would have been making the determination, not immigration judges.
It would have increased funding and resources at the border.
Just like the bipartisan 2013 bill, the 2024 bill passed the Senate and would have been signed by the president. The 2013 bill was blocked by the Republican House leadership, which would not allow it to be brought to the floor. The 2024 bipartisan bill was blocked by the Republican House leadership at the direct behest of Trump.
DS, you have brought that up before, and I’ve not looked into it, or the details of the plans. If it is as you say, I’ll gladly point to the Republicans as possibly bigger blockers of reform.
According to Google AI the GOP wanted more asylum reforms in the immigration bill:
In various immigration bill negotiations and legislative proposals, the GOP has consistently pushed for stricter asylum reforms aimed at limiting eligibility, speeding up processing, and expanding border expulsion authority. In the most recent budget negotiations in 2025, House Republicans included provisions to increase fees for asylum seekers, which some saw as another form of asylum reform.
Specific GOP-backed asylum reforms
Transit country restrictions: A key demand has been denying asylum to migrants who travel through a third country on their way to the U.S. without first seeking asylum there. This would heavily affect non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border.
Border expulsion authority: The GOP has repeatedly backed legislation giving the president emergency authority to rapidly expel migrants at the border if daily encounter numbers reach a certain threshold.
Higher screening standards: Republicans have sought to raise the initial screening standard for asylum claims from a “significant possibility” of persecution to the higher “reasonable possibility” standard. This would make it more difficult for asylum seekers to pass the initial screening.
Processing restrictions: GOP-supported measures aim to speed up asylum processing with accelerated timelines while restricting judicial review of decisions. Some proposals also seek to end the use of humanitarian parole for migrants crossing the southern border by land.
Increased application fees: House Republicans passed a budget bill in May 2025 that included a new $1,000 fee for asylum applications, a measure that critics argue would price out low-income asylum seekers. This fee was later adjusted in reconciliation after a Senate parliamentarian ruling.
Limitations on eligibility: Some Republican proposals in recent years have sought to narrow eligibility criteria for asylum by:
Excluding those who cross the border between ports of entry.
Making it harder for people persecuted by non-state actors like criminal gangs to qualify.
Applying other bars to asylum—such as having a past misdemeanor conviction—earlier in the screening process.
Opposition and deal-making
The desire for more asylum reform was a primary reason Senate Republicans ultimately rejected the bipartisan border bill negotiated in early 2024.
Are you saying that because people were abusing asylum its okay to deport people to where they might be murdered?
I’m said no such thing.
Well then what are you saying? We shouldn’t give asylum seekers due process?
Check out the movie I linked. Stars Faye Dunaway and Katherine Ross won the Academy Award for best supporting actress.
Don’t you see that Trumpism is taking a long standing acknowledge problem and doing something so drastic that it would have been previously viewed as a non-starter.
Honestly, they should do-away with birthright citizenship in regard to parents who are citizens of other countries. It, along with the asylum system, is being abused – and not just by “poor” immigrants.
How many American women go to other countries in order to have their own kids become “automatic citizens” of a country other than their own?
There are (legitimate) news reports of wealthy parents from China, for example, engaging in “birth tourism” in the U.S.
And for those in the country illegally, what kind of “gall” does it take to ALSO have kids when they’re here illegally in the first place – with the expectation that the country “owes” their kid citizenship?
And no, the government is NOT going after “all”. If that was the case, David would be in a prison in El Salvador, by now. Right next to Newsom.
Honestly, I’m getting tired of this nonsense, myself. (Not the illegal immigrants – I’m referring to the Americans which support it.)
14th Amendment.
Note the word “Amendment”. You think they can’t add more?
But again, it’s not the illegal immigrants themselves that I’m “tired of”. It’s the Americans who support it with nonsense arguments. That’s the reason it occurs to the degree it does in the first place.
And a lot of it is driven by money (taking advantage of illegal immigrants out of self-interest). (In other words, the “usual” interest behind a lot of fake political arguments.)
Those people are also causing immigrants themselves to lose their lives. A lot of them couldn’t care less about that – since they’re easily replaceable.
There’s actually two groups of Americans who support illegal immigration, with some overlap between them. 1) Those who support illegal immigration on “moral” grounds, and 2) Business interests – including those who hire nannys, for example. (But there’s far larger interests than just individuals hiring domestic help.)
They would have to “amend” the “amendment” which takes a two-thirds vote of both houses plus three-quarters of the states, that ain’t happening.
Isn’t that true of any amendment? And has already been done 27 times (including the 10 in the Bill of Rights)? With the most-recent amendment in 1992?
For that matter, they could legalize abortion this way (and the Supreme Court would have nothing to “decide”).
But I agree it’s unlikely, for the reasons already mentioned. Too many Americans support illegal immigration for that to occur.
Trump himself backed off (at least temporarily) in regard to the industries which depend upon illegal immigration. (That alone undermines his entire argument. But he is the “Let’s Make a Deal” president, for sure – which is probably a good overall approach in regard to success in politics.)
Yes, there is nothing unusual about the amendment.
I don’t see the parallel to Japanese Americans, because they were citizens. I was appalled by that.
Having said that, as I have said before, I am fine with the border being much less porous, and with criminals over a certain level being deported. However, I am rather horrified with Trump’s deportation policies and enforcement. My belief is that if one administration as much as lets people in en masse, the following administration has an obligation to let those people stay unless they have committed a severe crime. But that’s not the law, just what I believe is right. A huge community should not have live in fear that they or their friends, neighbors and relatives will be gone tomorrow.
This is just us vs. them politics. Both parties suck and both parties gain from the politics of having an immigration problem. That’s why they haven’t solved it, not Dems when they were in power. It maintains ‘us vs them’ rather than what we really should be dealing with US vs. Both Parties.
But y’all are too focused on getting rid of . . . #ahem# . . . “Hitler” :-|
But he’s now talking about going after citizenship, denaturalization, and has gone after long term residents… I see parallels there even if they are perfect comparisons. And then sending people to prisons, detention centers, and countries that are not where people originated. The life disruption to people is immense and the fear level and anxiety is awful and it goes much deeper than just the folks that they were originally talking about.
On those points we fully agree.
They (Donald Trump) was “always” talking about deporting everyone in the country illegally.
Which was never realistic.
I also heard him say one time that he was going to work on the criminals and that things could be ‘worked out’ with others who had been here awhile. But he says a lot of stuff, and contradicts himself, and says stuff he never means to annoy people, and changes his mind on a whim etc. The only refreshing thing is he doesn’t lie like a typical politician. He lies like Donald Trump.
“The desire for more asylum reform was a primary reason Senate Republicans ultimately rejected the bipartisan border bill negotiated in early 2024.”
The primary reason the bill was rejected was Trump told them to kill the bill so he could run against immigration.
I think I’ll go with Google AI over your opinion, no offense.
“The desire for more asylum reform was a primary reason Senate Republicans ultimately rejected the bipartisan border bill negotiated in early 2024.”
“In recent weeks, Trump has been lobbying Republicans both in private conversations and in public statements on social media to oppose the border compromise being delicately hashed out in the Senate, according to GOP sources familiar with the conversations – in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable.”
“Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged in a private meeting on Wednesday that Trump’s animosity toward the yet-to-be-released border deal puts Republicans in a serious bind as they try to move forward on the already complex issue. For weeks, Republicans have been warning that Trump’s opposition could blow up the bipartisan proposal, but the admission from McConnell was particularly striking, given he has been a chief advocate for a border-Ukraine package.”
By Manu Raju, Melanie Zanona, Lauren Fox and Ted Barrett, CNN
7 min read
Updated 8:52 PM EST, Thu January 25, 2024
“By Manu Raju, Melanie Zanona, Lauren Fox and Ted Barrett, CNN”
Say no more…
Okay, just so we are clear, you are going to choose something AI generated over something from three reporters from CNN. And as a result you remain misinformed. All I can say is wow.
I’ll take AI over CNN supposed journalists any day.
Thanks David for posting my comments.
I don’t know why I often have to ask to get them posted.
Tuesdays and Fridays I’m on the road, so that’s the hold up… You don’t have to ask, they’ll get posted, sometimes with a bit of a delay.
Regarding AI, all one has to do is to look at the sources/links that are provided.
Sometimes the summary provided is accurate, and sometimes it is not.
You always have to fact check whatever you read – pretty much anywhere.
Trump didn’t even need Congress’ assistance to implement his own solution regarding illegal immigration. Presumably, Biden could have done something on his own during his time in office, as well.
There was a reason that Biden was perceived as “vulnerable” regarding this issue in the first place. Those images of thousands of illegal border crossings every day certainly didn’t help him, nor did his fight with the governor of Texas regarding this issue.
Nor did the Texas governor’s response (sending immigrants to New York, for example). Which I thought was politically-brilliant.
And then for awhile, didn’t New York house them at the Waldorf-Astoria? (Slight exaggeration.)
We all saw it Ron. It’s head scratching watching democrats now trying to backtrack on what they did.
So I did a little digging into how the Biden-Lankford immigration bill died in 2024 and found an article that had likely been entered into the large language model that gave Keith his AI generated answer. Here is the deal, the Whitehouse and a bipartisan group of Senators had a deal and Trump blew it up to run on immigration. Of course there are apologists and enablers who write articles explaining away the political maneuvering by writing cover stories about how it died because it wasn’t good enough. So it seems that Keith’s AI search yielded the cover story. A cover story that comports with what Keith wants to believe.