Federal policy on border security, 2017-2019

	Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
	For more on immigration policy, view the following articles:
	•Timeline of federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
	•115th Congress on immigration, 2017-2018
	•Federal policy on border security, 2017-2019
	•Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020
	•Federal policy on immigration enforcement and visa programs, 2017-2020
	•Federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2017-2018
	•Sens. Cotton and Perdue's Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act
	•Trump administration officials on immigration, 2016-2018
	•Immigration policy in the U.S.

Trump Administration (first term)

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term

Policy positions
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues
Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade
Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity

Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration

See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

A key plank in President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign platform was the construction of a wall along the border between the United States and Mexico. When he announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015, Trump said, "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."^[1]

On January 8, 2019—the 18th day of a partial government shutdown that began over border wall funding—Trump called on Congress to allocate $5.7 billion to build a wall or steel barrier on the southern border to protect the nation. In the televised address from the Oval Office, Trump said that there was a humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. He said, “At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.” Trump said that he would not sign legislation to end the partial shutdown if it did not include funding for border security.^[2]

Immediately after Trump’s speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), issued a televised response rejecting Trump’s request for a border wall and calling on him to reopen the government. Pelosi said, “President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.” Schumer said that Democrats supported border security measures, but “disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.”^[3]

On February 15, 2019, Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. He had requested $5.7 billion in wall funding. Because he did not get the amount requested, he declared a state of emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1 billion to build a border wall.^[4]

This page tracked major events and policy positions of the Trump administration and the 115th United States Congress on border security from January 2017 to February 2019. This page was updated through February 2019. Think something is missing? Please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

This page outlines major developments in federal policy on border security, including executive orders, legislative action, and positions taken by Trump administration officials and members of Congress.

February 15, 2019: Trump signs bill to fund parts of the government and border barrier; declares state of emergency

President Donald Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. He had requested $5.7 billion in wall funding. Because he did not get the amount requested, he declared a state of emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1 billion to build a border wall.^[5]

In a Rose Garden announcement, Trump explained his emergency declaration, saying, “It’s a great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people.”^[6]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the declaration, saying in a joint statement, “The president’s unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist does great violence to our Constitution and makes America less safe. The president is not above the law. The Congress cannot let the president shred the Constitution.”^[6]

The day before Trump declared a state of emergency, the Senate passed the $328 billion spending bill by a vote of 83-16, and the House passed it by a vote of 300-128.

In the Senate, 42 members of the Democratic caucus and 41 Republicans voted for the bill. Eleven Republicans and five Democrats voted against the bill. 2020 presidential candidates Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) all voted against it. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also voted against it. The 11 Republicans who voted against the bill were Sens. Mike Braun (Ind.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Josh Hawley (Mo.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Tim Scott (S.C.), and Pat Toomey (Pa.).^[7]

In the House, 213 Democrats and 87 Republicans voted for the bill. One hundred and nine Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against the bill.^[8]

The package of seven spending bills included funding for the following departments and agencies through September 30, 2019:^[9]

Homeland Security: $61.6 billion in discretionary funding, including "$1.375 billion for construction of 55 news miles of physical barrier along Border Patrol’s highest priority locations along the southwest border," according to a Senate Appropriations Committee summary. This was the same amount of money that was in the 2018 spending bill, according to Politico. Trump had requested $5.7 billion.^[10]^[9]

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration: $23.042 billion in discretionary funding.

Commerce, Justice, and Science: $64.118 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $4.518 billion above the FY2018 enacted level.

Financial Services and General Government: $23.4 billion in discretionary spending.

Interior and Environment: $35.552 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $300 million above the FY2018 enacted level.

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: $54.2 billion in discretionary funding, of which $8 billion is for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: $71.079 billion, an increase of $779 million above the FY2018 level.

The bill was the result of negotiations that began on January 25, 2019, when members of Congress and Trump reached an agreement to temporarily fund the government while they worked out a larger plan to address immigration and border security.^[11]

February 18, 2019: Sixteen states file suit against Trump's emergency declaration

On February 18, 2019, 16 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in California’s Northern District against President Donald Trump's emergency declaration to pay for a wall along the southern border.^[12]

The lawsuit stated that the emergency declaration showed a “flagrant disregard for the separation of powers. ... President Trump has veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”^[12]

The lawsuit was filed by Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. They said that the emergency declaration would cause their states to lose millions in federal funding and cause environmental damage.^[12]

At the time of the filing, the following states with Democratic attorneys general did not join the lawsuit: Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

"The states’ lawsuit is likely to stall the implementation of the emergency declaration and generate protracted legal battles that could land before the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. The case may not be resolved before 2020, potentially making Mr. Trump’s plan an issue in the next presidential election," according to The Wall Street Journal.^[12]

February 26, 2019: House passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration

On February 26, 2019, the House passed legislation to overturn President Donald Trump's declaration of national emergency on the southern border. The resolution passed by a vote of 245-182. Every Democrat and 13 Republicans voted for the resolution.^[13]^[14]

The 13 Republican who voted for the resolution were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Will Hurd (Texas), Dusty Johnson (S.D.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Francis Rooney (Fla.), Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and Greg Walden (Ore.).^[13]

The legislation now heads to the Senate where four GOP senators will have to vote with every member of the Democratic caucus to send it to Trump's desk. If it passes, Trump said that he would veto the resolution. It would be the first veto of his presidency.

Before the vote, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who supported the resolution, said, “We have a constitutional mission and a mandate to preserve the balance of power and to oppose this monument of hate.”^[15]

Members of the House Liberty Caucus, including the group's leader Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), wrote in a statement, “This national emergency declaration does not conform to our constitution.”^[15]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who voted against the resolution, said, “What we see happening along the border, the amount of drugs, the amount of deaths in America, the human trafficking that’s coming across, the overwhelming problem there. So, the president has the authority to do it. And we will uphold him.”^[16]

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an active-duty member of the Air National Guard, who was deployed to the border said, “I went down there neutral on this question, didn’t know whether or not I’d support a national emergency. And I came back more convinced probably than anybody that this is the right thing to do.”^[16]

February 3, 2019: Trump administration announces more troops headed to southern border

On February 3, 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that 3,700 members of the military would be sent to the southern border to assist Customs and Border Protection by placing razor wire along the border and helping with surveillance operations. Before the deployment, there were nearly 650 troops at the border.^[17]

President Donald Trump initially signed a memorandum to deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border on April 4, 2018, and sent troops to the border in October 2018. Trump said that the troops were being deployed to combat "a drastic surge of illegal activity on the southern border."^[18]

January 19, 2019: Trump releases plan to secure border and end partial shutdown

On January 19, 2019, President Donald Trump released his plan to secure the southern border and end the partial government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018. He said, “To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis. To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border. This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve.”^[19]

Trump’s plan included the following:^[19]

$5.7 billion to fund a steel barrier system;
$805 million for technology, canines, and personnel to prevent drugs and weapons from being brought into the country;
$800 million dollars in humanitarian assistance, medical support, and new temporary housing;
$782 million to hire an additional 2,750 border agents, law enforcement officers, and staff;
$563 million for the immigration court system, including hiring 75 new immigration judge teams;
Three years of provisional status for DACA and certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients, which would protect them from deportation.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released the following statement shortly before Trump released his plan publicly: “Democrats were hopeful that the President was finally willing to re-open government and proceed with a much-need discussion to protect the border. ... It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter.”^[20]

January 24, 2019: Senate rejects two proposals to end the partial government shutdown

On January 24, 2019, the Senate rejected two proposals to end the partial government shutdown. The plan backed by Trump failed by a vote of 50-47. It needed 60 votes to pass. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was the only Democrat who supported the bill. Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) were the only Republicans who opposed the bill. The legislation proposed allocating $5.7 billion in border-wall funding, providing temporary protections for DACA and certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients, and funding unfunded government agencies.^[21]

The Democratic-backed plan failed by a vote of 52-44. Six Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Johnny Isakson (Ga.)—voted with Democrats for the continuing resolution to fund the government through February 8, 2019. It did not include funding for border security.^[22]

The votes took place on the 34th day of the partial shutdown.

January 25, 2019: Congress and Trump reach temporary agreement to fund the government; border talks continue

On January 25, 2019, members of Congress and Trump reached an agreement to fund the government until February 15, 2019, while lawmakers worked out a larger plan to address immigration and border security.^[11]

The Senate passed the continuing resolution by voice vote. The House unanimously passed the bill by voice vote, and Trump signed it, ending the 35-day partial government shutdown.

Trump had previously said that he would not sign legislation to reopen the federal government if it did not include funding for a border wall or barrier, but he agreed to do so, saying that he would declare a national emergency if the negotiations to fund the wall failed.^[11]

January 8, 2019: Trump makes case for border barrier in televised address; Democratic leadership rejects request

In the televised address from the Oval Office on January 8, 2019, President Donald Trump said that there was a humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border, and he called on members of Congress to allocate $5.7 billion to build a wall or steel barrier to protect the nation. He said, “At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.”^[2]

In making his case for the barrier, Trump said that individuals who enter the country without legal permission from the southern border strain public resources and drive down jobs and wages. He also said that some drugs and criminals enter the country through the southern border, harming Americans.^[2]

In response to those, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who “have suggested a barrier is immoral,” Trump said, “Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.”^[2]

The address took place on the 18th day of a partial government shutdown. Trump said that he would not sign legislation to reopen the government if it did not include border funding.

Immediately after Trump’s speech, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), issued a televised response rejecting Trump’s request for a border wall and calling on him to reopen the government. Pelosi said, “President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.”^[3]

Schumer said that Democrats supported border security measures, but “disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.” Schumer also criticized Trump for creating a crisis that he said did not exist. Schumer said, “This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.”^[3]

In his address, Trump did not declare a national emergency over border security, something he said that he was considering. “Federal law allows the president to halt military construction projects and divert those funds for the emergency,” according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrats said that they would challenge Trump’s declaration in court if issued.^[23]^[24]

December 20, 2018: DHS announces some migrants will be sent back to Mexico to await immigration proceedings

On December 20, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that individuals attempting to enter the U.S. without legal permission or proper documentation could be returned to Mexico while waiting for immigration proceedings. DHS invoked Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in making the policy change.^[25]

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement, “Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates. Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico. ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’ In doing so, we will reduce illegal migration by removing one of the key incentives that encourages people from taking the dangerous journey to the United States in the first place. This will also allow us to focus more attention on those who are actually fleeing persecution."^[25]

Nielsen also said that the Mexican government was notified of the change. “In response, Mexico has made an independent determination that they will commit to implement essential measures on their side of the border. We expect affected migrants will receive humanitarian visas to stay on Mexican soil, the ability to apply for work, and other protections while they await a U.S. legal determination,” Nielsen said.^[25]

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) praised the policy change, saying it would bring “sanity to our asylum policies that have been exploited and abused.”^[26]

Maureen Meyer, director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America, criticized the policy, saying it was “yet one more example of the U.S. trying to outsource its international protection obligations to Mexico.”^[26]

November 9, 2018: Trump issues presidential proclamation on asylum

On November 9, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation preventing migrants who enter the country without legal permission from claiming asylum. The proclamation enacted a rule published by the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice that stated only migrants who enter the country through legal ports of entry can claim asylum.^[27]^[28]^[29]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), migrants can claim asylum even if they do not enter the country through a port of entry. The INA also gives the president the authority to prohibit the entry of migrants into the U.S. if their presence would be detrimental to the country.^[30]^[31]

Citing the actions of previous presidents to prevent mass migration, Trump wrote, “I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry.”^[32]

November 9, 2018: Groups sue Trump administration over asylum proclamation

On the same day Trump issued the proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the administration alleging that the rule and proclamation violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act.^[33]

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement, “President Trump’s new asylum ban is illegal. Neither the president nor his cabinet secretaries can override the clear commands of U.S. law, but that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. This action undermines the rule of law and is a great moral failure because it tries to take away protections from individuals facing persecution — it’s the opposite of what America should stand for.”^[33]

The groups said that the rule and proclamation “are in direct violation of Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar. Consistent with its international obligations, Congress was specific and clear: Entering without inspection is not a basis to categorically deny asylum to refugees."^[33]

November 19, 2018: Judge blocks presidential proclamation on asylum

On November 19, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s presidential proclamation on asylum. Tigar ruled the proclamation conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Tigar wrote, "Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden." Tigar also said the rule was "an extreme departure from prior practice" and that immigrants would "suffer irreparable injury if the rule goes into effect."^[34]^[35] Click here to read the full ruling.

October 26, 2018: Trump administration to send troops to U.S.-Mexico border

On October 26, 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis approved a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send additional members of the military to the southwest border to assist border patrol agents with a convoy of thousands of migrants trying to enter the U.S. The active-duty troops were approved in addition to the 2,000 National Guard members sent to the U.S.-Mexico border in April 2018. The Pentagon said that 5,200 troops would be deployed, with about 1,800 in Texas, 1,700 in Arizona, and 1,500 in California. The mission was expected to last until mid-December 2018.^[36]^[37]

On October 31, 2018, President Donald Trump said that up to 15,000 members of the military could be deployed. He said, "As far as the caravan is concerned, our military is out. We have about 5,000. We'll go up to anywhere between 10 and 15,000 military personnel on top of Border Patrol, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and everybody else at the border."^[38]

According to a statement from the Pentagon, the additional troops were approved to support border agents by providing “aviation support to move [Customs and Border Protection] personnel, medical teams to triage, treat and prepare for commercial transport of patients, command and control facilities, temporary housing for CBP personnel and personal protective equipment for CBP personnel.” Members of the military were also authorized to build temporary barriers, barricades, and fencing at the border. The military cannot engage in law enforcement activities at the border because the Posse Comitatus Act bars them from doing so.^[36]^[39]

Speaking about the caravan, President Donald Trump said, “We’re not letting them in. They’d better go back now. Now, do we want them to apply and come in legally? Absolutely.”^[36]

Will Fischer, director of government relations for VoteVets, a pro-Democratic advocacy group, criticized the move for harming military readiness. Fischer said, “What that means is that Donald Trump is mobilizing the military to be a bunch of gophers and movers for border patrol and DHS, which is a gross misuse of our military. For the president to take them away from training affects mission readiness.”^[36]

November 25, 2018: DHS closes San Ysidro Port of Entry

On November 25, 2018, U.S. authorities closed the San Ysidro Port of Entry and fired tear gas at a group of Central American migrants trying to enter the country without legal permission. Tear gas was fired after some of the migrants threw projectiles at border patrol agents, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The migrants were seeking asylum in the U.S. to escape poverty and violence in their home countries, according to The Hill.^[40]^[41]

Nielsen released a statement on the decision to close the port and use tear gas. She said,

“

This morning, CBP was forced to close the San Ysidro Port of Entry to ensure public safety in response to large numbers of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. illegally. After being prevented from entering the Port of Entry, some of these migrants attempted to breach legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP personnel by throwing projectiles at them. As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons. We will also seek to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who destroys federal property, endangers our frontline operators, or violates our nation’s sovereignty. CBP, along with other DHS law enforcement, federal law enforcement, the U.S. military and state and local law enforcement, will continue to have a robust presence along the Southwest Border and at our ports of entry to prevent illegal entry or violence. We continue to stay in close contact with Mexican authorities and we remain committed to resolving this situation safely in concert with our Mexican partners.^[42]

”

July 18, 2018: House approves resolution demonstrating support for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

On July 18, 2018, the United States House of Representatives approved H. Res. 990, a resolution voicing support for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and criticizing calls for the agency's abolition. A similar measure failed to clear the United States Senate on the same day.^[43]^[44]^[45]

The resolution, which required a two-thirds majority in order to pass, cleared the House by a vote of 244 to 35. All but one Republican (Rep. Justin Amash, Mich.) voted in favor of the resolution, while 34 Democrats voted against it. The remaining 133 Democrats voted present. Sixteen members did not vote: eight Democrats and eight Republicans.^[46]

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who voted in favor of the resolution, said, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents keep American communities and families safe. They defend against gang violence, drug trafficking, terrorism, and other dangerous criminals. It is their duty to faithfully execute the laws as they are written, and they put their lives on the line every day to fulfill that mission." Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who voted present, said, "I'm voting 'present' on this resolution because it's a sham and a distraction. It's an outrageous attempt to hide the continued suffering of children behind the partisans' attack on Democrats."^[47]

Sen Steven Daines (R-Mont.) asked that the resolution be approved by unanimous consent, saying, "It is outrageous. It is irresponsible to call for abolishing one of our country's most critical security measures. Abolishing ICE would give terrorists, gang members, drug dealers and other criminals a field day." Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) objected, saying, "This moment hardly seems the time for the Senate to engage in debating rhetorical phrases or praise for the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency when that agency, better known as ICE, is deeply mired in the scandal of separating children from their parents."^[48]

June 20, 2018: Trump signs executive order directing DHS to keep detained families together

On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep detained families together. The order also called on the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in providing housing for families when detention centers are at capacity, according to Politico. The order came amid criticisms of the administration's policy, announced on May 7, 2018, of prosecuting parents crossing the U.S. border illegally and separating children from their parents pending resolution of their cases. Prior to signing the order, Trump said, "We’re going to be signing an executive order in a little while. We’re going to keep families together but we still have to maintain toughness or our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things that we don’t stand for and that we don’t want." The full text of the order can be accessed here.^[49]^[50]^[51]

At the time the order was signed, it was unclear how it might conflict with the Flores agreement, a legal settlement reached in 1997 that has been interpreted by federal courts to prevent immigration officials from detaining minor children for more than 20 days. Trump's order directed the attorney general to file a request in federal district court to modify the terms of the agreement "in a manner that would permit [federal officials] ... to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings." On July 9, 2018, Judge Dolly Gee, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, issued an order denying that request. Gee wrote, "It is apparent that Defendants' Application is a cynical attempt ... to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. ... In sum, Defendants have not shown that applying the Flores Agreement 'prospectively is no longer equitable,' or that 'manifest injustice' will result if the Agreement is not modified." Devin O'Malley, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the following in a statement responding to Gee's order: "Parents who cross the border will not be released and must choose between remaining in family custody with their children pending immigration proceedings or requesting separation from their children so the child may be placed with a sponsor."^[52]^[53]^[54]

Pentagon spokesperson Dana White told Reuters that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had asked the Pentagon "to determine its capabilities to provide up to 20,000 temporary beds for unaccompanied alien children" at military bases. As of June 22, 2018, no final decision on whether to house such children at military bases had been made.^[55]

On June 22, 2018, an anonymous Trump administration official told the Associated Press that approximately 500 of the roughly 2,300 children separated from their families at the border had been reunited since May 2018. The official went on to say that federal agencies were planning to establish a procedure for processing the remaining reunifications.^[56]

On June 23, 2018, the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a press release detailing the planned reunification process. According to that release, the federal government had reunified 522 children—referred to as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)—with their families and was in the process of reuniting another 16 UAC with their families at the time the statement was issued. This left 2,053 unaccompanied minors being housed in HHS facilities, with 83 percent of those having arrived in the United States without a parent or guardian, according to the press release.^[57]

Responses

On June 26, 2018, Judge Dana Sabraw of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that migrant families separated at the border must be reunited. Sabraw issued a nationwide injunction against separating migrant families at the border. The ruling specified that children under the age of five held in federal shelters should be returned to their parents by July 10 and children older than the age of five should be returned by July 26. Sabraw stated in the injunction that families were not to be separated unless parents were deemed unfit and added that parents were entitled to speak with their children within 10 days. On July 6, 2018, federal officials asked that these deadlines be extended. Attorneys for the federal government said the following in a statement submitted to the court: "The government does not wish to unnecessarily delay reunification. At the same time, however, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that any release of a child from government custody occurs in a manner that ensures the safety of the child." On July 8, 2018, federal officials informed Sabraw that more than 50 children would be reunited with their families the following day and that approximately 40 others could not yet be reunified with their families due to issues with matching them with their parents or clearing the parents to take custody of the children. Sabraw said, "I am very encouraged about the progress. This is real progress. I'm optimistic that many of these families will be reunited tomorrow."^[58]^[59]^[60]
- On July 10, 2018, federal officials informed Sabraw that 38 of 102 children under the age of five would be reunited with their parents by the end of the day (and that another 16 would be reunited with their parents shortly thereafter). The U.S. Justice Department said, "Any children not being reunified by the July 10 deadline are not being reunified because of legitimate logistical impediments that render timely compliance impossible or excusable, and so defendants are complying with the court's order." Sabraw said, "I intend to stand on the deadline. The government, because of the way the families were separated, has an obligation to reunite and to do it safely and efficiently, that's paramount." Sabraw ordered officials to provide an update on July 12.^[61]
- On July 12, 2018, federal officials announced that 57 children under 5 years of age had been reunited with their families. Officials noted that another 46 children were not eligible for reunification (e.g., because their parents hadn't cleared background checks, had criminal records, or had been deported). Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of Homeland Security, and Jeff Sessions, attorney general, said, "As of this morning, the initial reunifications were completed. Throughout the reunification process, our goal has been the well-being of the children and returning them to a safe environment."^[62]
- On July 16, 2018, Sabraw ordered a temporary halt to the deportation of families reunited under his June 26 ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) requested the move, arguing that it was necessary due to "persistent and increasing rumors — which [federal officials] have refused to deny — that mass deportations may be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification." Sabraw gave federal officials one week to file a response in opposition to this request.^[63]^[64]
- On July 26, 2018, the deadline set by Sabraw for reuniting children over the age of five with their families, federal officials reported that 1,442 such children had been reunited with their parents held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Another 378 children had been sent either to a sponsor or to their parents held in Department of Homeland Security custody. Another 711 children remained in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement because their parents were either ineligible or unavailable for reunification. This included 120 children whose parents waived the right to reunification, 431 children whose parents were outside of the United States, and 94 whose parents' locations remained unclear.^[65]
On June 21, 2018, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) announced that Washington and 10 other states would file suit in federal district court against the Trump administration over its policy of separating children from parents who cross the U.S. border illegally. Ferguson said, "We'll allege that the administration is violating constitutional due process rights of the parents and children by separating them as a matter of course and without any findings that the parent poses a threat to the children. The policy is also irrationally discriminatory in violation of constitutional guarantees of people protection, because it only targets people crossing our southern border, not any other entrance to the United States." The other states joining the lawsuit included Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota. Ferguson's office had planned to file the suit in federal district court on June 21, 2018, but postponed filing to amend the complaint to reflect Trump's June 20, 2018, executive order.^[66] On June 26, six other states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia—joined the lawsuit.^[67]^[68]
In a statement issued on June 20, 2018, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I am glad the president took this step today. I hope the federal courts reconsider the decision that limits an administration's ability to keep families together while their immigration status is being determined."^[69]
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) said the following via Twitter on June 20, 2018: "It's a relief that [Trump] has reversed himself & recognized the cruelty of his policy of separating families. While the EO doesn't reference the families already ripped apart, I hope & expect that the admin will be able to quickly reunite these children w/their parents."^[69]
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the following in a statement on June 20, 2018: "The President’s Executive Order seeks to replace one form of child abuse with another. Instead of protecting traumatized children, the President has directed his Attorney General to pave the way for the long-term incarceration of families in prison-like conditions."^[70]
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said via Twitter on June 20, 2018, "Very pleased [President Trump] will issue an executive order dealing with separation of children and parents detained at our southern border. Only Congress can provide a permanent solution regarding the legal dilemma created by the 1997 Flores settlement agreement."^[69]

May 7, 2018: Trump administration announces it will prosecute parents who cross the border with their children

On May 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would prosecute parents who crossed the U.S. border illegally with their children. The policy called for parents to be separated from their children, pending resolution of their cases. The policy called for children to be placed in shelters or with families. The policy applied to those crossing the border illegally, not those requesting asylum at ports of entry. Those caught crossing the border illegally would still be permitted to apply for asylum.^[71]

Sessions said, “I have put in place a zero-tolerance policy for our Southwest border. If you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that’s a felony. If you help others to do so, that’s a felony, too. You’re going to jail. So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.”^[72]

At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee meeting on May 8, 2018, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) criticized the policy, saying, “No matter what you call it, the new policy is going to result in thousands of children, some of them infants, being forcibly separated from their families. My concern is not just that the administration is turning its back on immigrants. This administration is turning its back on what it means to be American.”^[73]

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen responded to the criticism by calling on families to come to the ports of entry to request asylum instead of crossing the border illegally. She said, “If you are fleeing and have a need to come to the United States, please come to the ports of entry. If you have a legitimate claim and you come to a port of entry, you haven’t broken the law.”^[73]

Amid criticism, White House officials said "that releasing the entire family would remove all consequences for adults trying to enter the U.S. They said it would make the country a 'magnet' for more illegal immigration, and that they were barred from the alternative of detaining families as a unit by the Flores decision," according to The Wall Street Journal. The 1997 Flores decision stated that children entering the U.S. without legal permission cannot be detained for more than 20 days.^[74]

Ur Jaddou, the director of DHS Watch at America’s Voice, disputed the White House's stance, saying, “Deliberately separating children from parents to sow fear in parents as a deterrence is unprecedented and beyond cruel. There are no ‘loopholes’ nor statutory requirements that children be ripped from their parents’ arms as a matter of routine practice.”^[74]

Questions raised about separation policy

In early June 2018, media attention to the policy increased, resulting in a series of reports by a variety of outlets. This increased attention prompted reactions from political figures, both Republican and Democratic.

On June 16, 2018, Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.) submitted a letter to Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services, asking for additional information on U.S. policy regarding the separation of children from parents seeking asylum. "We write regarding the safety and security of young children immigrating to the United States. Secretary Nielsen recently appeared before the U.S. Senate and testified that immigrant parents and children who present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to request asylum will not be separated. Despite Secretary Nielsen's testimony, a number of media outlets have reported instances where parents and children seeking asylum at a port of entry have been separated."^[75]

On June 17, 2018, Secretary of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen made the following statement via Twitter: "This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry. You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry. For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law. DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals and abuse."^[76]

Some Democratic members of Congress disputed Nielsen's statement. Rep Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, via Twitter, "If this isn't the White House policy, please tell the officials who I spoke with in Tornillo today who believe it is. Either own it or change it. Scratch that - just change it." Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said, also via Twitter, "This isn't true. I just met with officials at Border Patrol Processing Center in McAllen, Texas, who told me 1,147 children have been separated from parents at their facility."^[76]

On June 18, 2018, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "The pace of separations has increased — from nearly 50 to nearly 70 per day — despite widespread opposition throughout America. The White House appears deaf to the wellspring of opposition and deep concern about the welfare of children."^[77]

Trump calls for legislative action

On June 18, 2018, at a space policy event at the White House, President Donald Trump (R) said, "If the Democrats would sit down instead of obstructing, we could have something done very quickly. Good for the children, good for the country, good for the world."^[77] That same day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) also called for a legislative solution whle speaking at the National Sheriffs' Association conference. He said, "President Trump has said this cannot continue. We do not want to separate parents from their children. If we build the wall, if we pass legislation to end the lawlessness, we won’t face these terrible choices. We will have a system where those who need to apply for asylum can do so and those who want to come to this country will apply legally. The American people are generous people who want our laws enforced. That is what we intend to do, and we ask Congress to be our partners in this effort."^[78]

On June 19, 2018, in remarks delivered at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump (R) said, "Under current law, we have only two policy options to respond to this massive crisis: We can either release all illegal immigrant families and minors who show up at the border from Central America, or we can arrest the adults for the federal crime of illegal entry. Those are the only two options. ... So what I’m asking Congress to do is to give us a third option, which we have been requesting since last year — the legal authority to detain and promptly remove families together as a unit. We have to be able to do this. This is the only solution to the border crisis. We have to stop child smuggling. This is the way to do it."^[79]

Following Trump's comments, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters, "I support, and all of the members of the Republican conference support, a plan to keep families together while their immigration status is determined. This requires a solution, a narrow agreement to fix a problem that we all agree needs to be fixed."^[80] According to The Washington Post, Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) were each drafting separate bills designed to address this issue.^[80] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) dismissed a legislative solution, saying, "Anyone who believes this Republican congress is capable of addressing this issue is kidding themselves. The president can end this crisis with the flick of his pen, and he needs to do so now."^[81]

April 4, 2018: Trump signs memorandum to deploy troops to U.S.-Mexico border

On April 4, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to combat "a drastic surge of illegal activity on the southern border." The memorandum stated, "The combination of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, and extensive illegal immigration not only threatens our safety but also undermines the rule of law. ... The situation at the border has now reached a point of crisis. The lawlessness that continues at our southern border is fundamentally incompatible with the safety, security, and sovereignty of the American people. My Administration has no choice but to act."^[18]

The day before issuing the memorandum, Trump said, “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we are going to be guarding our border with the military. That's a big step. We really haven't done that before, or certainly not very much before.”^[82]

Speaking about the memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Border security is homeland security, which is national security. It’s not a partisan issue.” Nielsen told reporters that she and the governors from Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas were working out the details of the deployment. According to the Associated Press, "Trump’s order invoked a federal law called Title 32, under which governors retain command and control of Guard members from their state, with the federal government paying for the deployment."^[83]^[84]^[85]

When asked how many National Guardsmen he wanted to send to the border, Trump said, "Anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000. We’re looking at a combination of from 2,000 to 4,000. We’re moving that along. ... And we’ll probably keep them, or a large portion of them, until such time as we get the wall."^[86]

Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, opposed the move, saying, “I don't feel really comfortable with the idea of deploying military troops and creating the possibility for an increase in violence and an escalation of the conflict."^[82]

Mario Carrillo, Texas director for America’s Voice, criticized the announcement, saying, “This is not only unnecessary, but it’s entirely wasteful and will only add more fear and uncertainty to what border residents already experience."^[85]

The previous two presidents sent guardsmen to the border for security purposes. From 2006 to 2008, President George W. Bush (R) deployed 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border to assist the Border Patrol. In 2010 and 2011, President Barack Obama (D) sent about 1,200 guardsmen to the U.S.-Mexico border as well. According to The Wall Street Journal, “During those deployments, the troops helped augment the Border Patrol while that agency worked to add additional agents and construct new fencing. The troops, which were there mostly for training, were barred from law-enforcement activities but helped repair equipment and monitor surveillance cameras and sensors. Active-duty troops also have been sent to the border from time to time, primarily for training activities.”^[87]

During a meeting on April 3, 2018, Trump and top administration officials also discussed the administration’s strategy to address “the growing influx of illegal immigration, drugs and violent gang members from Central America," according to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She added that administration officials “agreed on the need to pressure Congress to urgently pass legislation to close legal loopholes exploited by criminal trafficking, narco-terrorist and smuggling organizations.”^[88]

Responses from governors

Support

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) supported the decision, writing in a tweet, “Washington has ignored this issue for too long and help is needed.”^[85]

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (R) said that she was supportive of the deployment.^[85]

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) supported the decision, saying, “Today’s action by the Trump Administration reinforces Texas’ longstanding commitment to secure our southern border and uphold the rule of law.”^[85]

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum said his state would “answer the call. We North Dakotans know from experience how critical it is for states to support each other in times of need."^[83]

Oppose

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) spokeswoman, Mary-Sarah Kinner, said Sandoval throught the mission would not be “an appropriate use” of the Nevada Guard.^[83]

Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) said she would not send guardsmen to the border. She wrote in a tweet, "As commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border."^[83]

California Governor Jerry Brown (D) did not immediately comment on the move. Lt. Col. Tom Keegan of the California National Guard said the administration’s request “will be promptly reviewed to determine how best we can assist our federal partners.”^[85]

On April 11, 2018, Brown wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen that the California National Guard would accept federal funding to add "approximately 400 Guard members statewide to supplement the staffing of its ongoing program to combat transnational crime. ... But let’s be crystal clear on the scope of this mission. This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws."^[89]
On April 16, 2018, Acting Customs and Border Patrol Deputy Commissioner Ronald Vitiello said, "We’ve got a signal from the governor [Jerry Brown] that he’s not participating." He added, "There will be other missions that we’re planning for the future state of this operation and so we’ll continue to see if those fit better."^[90]

March 23, 2018: Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill without full funding for border wall

On March 23, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a $1.3 trillion spending bill into law. The bill included $695 billion in defense funding and $591 billion in non-defense funding. It also included $78 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) spending.^[91]^[92]

Earlier in the day, he threatened to veto the bill. He wrote in a tweet, "I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded."^[93]

The spending law included $1.6 billion for border security, including $641 million for 33 miles of new fences or levees along the U.S.-Mexico border and $630 million for repairs and technology enhancements.^[94]^[95]

March 13, 2018: Trump visits border wall prototypes in California

On March 13, 2018, President Donald Trump went to the desert outside of San Diego, California, to view mock-ups of his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Several construction companies from Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, Maryland, and Texas were given bids to build prototypes made from concrete and other materials. Shortly before President Trump’s arrival in California, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) criticized the project, saying, “In California we are focusing on bridges, not walls.” President Trump responded by tweeting that “the $18 billion wall will pay for itself by curbing the importation of crime, drugs and illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.”^[96]

February 15, 2018: Senate rejects four immigration reform proposals

On February 15, 2018, the Senate began voting on a series of immigration bills aimed at finding a legislative fix for the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and border security measures. All of the measures failed to earn enough support for passage.

By a vote 52-47, the Senate rejected a measure from Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children and included a study to determine what border security measures were needed. It also proposed requiring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to secure the U.S.-Mexico border by 2021. It did not include any funding for border security. The motion needed 60 votes to proceed to a vote on the final bill.^[97]^[98]

The Senate also rejected an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that proposed withholding “certain non-law enforcement federal grant funds from ‘sanctuary cities’ -- jurisdictions that forbid their local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials, even when they wish to do so,” according to a press release from Toomey’s office. The legislation was rejected by a vote of 54-45. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle.^[99]^[100]

By a vote of 54-45, the Senate rejected a bipartisan proposal from the Common Sense Coalition, a group of centrist senators, that proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children, $25 billion for border security, and limitations on family-based immigration. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the legislation because it did not include all of his immigration reform priorities. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle.^[101]^[102]

By a vote of 40-59, the Senate rejected a proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that included President Donald Trump's four immigration reform pillars. It proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children, $25 billion for border security, limits on chain migration (also called family-based migration), and eliminating the visa lottery system.^[103]

The following Republican senators voted against the proposal:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

After the votes, it was unclear how Congress would address DACA and other immigration reform measures.

January 25, 2018: Trump administration releases initial framework for immigration plan

On January 25, 2018, the Trump administration released an immigration plan that would allow as many as 1.8 million individuals who were brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children U.S. citizenship in exchange for $25 billion in border security, including a border wall, and other changes to the immigration system.^[104]^[105]^[106]

Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller discussed President Donald Trump's decision to offer citizenship to individuals known as Dreamers, saying, “The president has indicated a willingness to extend citizenship to 1.8 million individuals as part of this immigration reform package. That would be the DACA population, plus individuals who failed to apply for DACA but otherwise met the requirements, as well as adjustments in timeframe that would bring the total maximum population size to 1.8 million.”^[106]

The immigration plan included:^[104]^[105]^[106]

A path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, as well as those who were eligible but did not apply for legal status. The administration estimated that it would take 10-12 years for these individuals to earn citizenship.

A $25 billion trust fund for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, new security on the U.S.-Canada border, more border agents, and more immigration judges. According to The Hill, "The money would be kept in a trust fund so it could not be clawed back by future Congresses."

Limiting chain migration or family-based migration. Spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens would still be eligible to migrate to the U.S., but parents and siblings would not.

Eliminating the visa lottery system, an immigrant visa program for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.

The Trump administration was expected to ask members of the Senate to use his immigration plan to draft legislation.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said that he did not like the price tag for the border wall but would be willing to fund it in exchange for Dreamers being granted a path to citizenship. He said, “I don’t think that’s the best way to spend money but look if I can get protection for Dreamers, I’m prepared to do some things that I don’t think are exactly the best."^[106]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the plan, saying, “I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally. Doing so is inconsistent with the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”^[105]

Trump’s immigration framework was criticized by outside groups and news outlets on both ends of the political spectrum. Breitbart News, a conservative news and opinion website, called the framework "Don's Amnesty Bonanza." CREDO Action, a progressive group, called the framework a "white supremacist’s wish list."^[107]

According to a Cato Institute study conducted by David Bier and Stuart Anderson, Trump's immigration plan "would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent or half a million immigrants annually—the largest policy-driven legal immigration cut since the 1920s. Compared to current law, it would exclude nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States over the next five decades."^[108]

January 5, 2018: Trump administration sends list of immigration priorities to lawmakers

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration sent a letter to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) outlining a list of immigration priorities that “must be included as part of any legislation” addressing DACA recipients.^[109]

The Trump administration asked Congress for the following in any immigration deal:^[109]

$18 billion to construct more than 700 miles of new and replacement barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. By 2027, the administration wanted fencing or a wall along 970 miles of the 2,000-mile border. Six hundred and fifty-four miles of barrier existed on the border at the time of the proposal.

An end to chain migration, an immigrant visa program for relatives of U.S. citizens.

An end to the diversity-visa lottery, an immigrant visa program for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

Changes to the asylum system.

Mandatory use of the e-Verify system for businesses to check the employment status of prospective employees.

$33 billion in new border security spending over 10 years, including “$5.7 billion over five years for towers, surveillance equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and other technology; $1 billion over five years for road construction and maintenance; and $8.5 billion over seven years for 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and other personnel,” according to "The Wall Street Journal".^[109]

Durbin criticized the proposal, saying, “It’s outrageous that the White House would undercut months of bipartisan efforts by again trying to put its entire wish list of hard-line anti-immigrant bills—plus an additional $18 billion in wall funding—on the backs of these young people.”^[109]

The document, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security and requested by a group of senators, was not publicly released.^[109]

January 25, 2017, executive orders on sanctuary cities and border wall

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on immigration. The second order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” called for the construction of a wall along the United States’ southern border, a key component of Trump’s platform as a presidential candidate. Under this executive order, additional detention facilities were also set to be built near the border to house individuals residing in or entering the U.S. without legal permission.^[110]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) estimated on January 26, 2017, that the wall would cost between $12 billion and $15 billion. “We intend to address the wall issue ourselves, and the president can deal with his relations with other countries on that issue and others,” McConnell said, indicating Congress would handle funding the project.^[111]

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on January 26, 2017, that Trump was considering applying a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall.^[112]

Trump administration officials on border security

President Donald Trump

On April 3, 2018, before a working lunch with the heads of the Baltic States, Trump discussed a caravan of people from Central America who were seeking asylum in the U.S. and border security policies. He said, “And when this caravan came in — and this is a caravan of a lot of people coming in — in this case, from Honduras. If it reaches our border, our laws are so weak and so pathetic, you would not understand this because — I know how strong your laws are at the border. It’s like we have no border because we had Obama make changes. President Obama made changes that basically created no border. It’s called catch-and-release. You catch them, you register them, they go into our country and we can’t throw them out. And, in many cases, they shouldn’t be here. In many, many cases, they shouldn’t be here. And after they get whatever happens over the next two or three years, they’re supposed to come back to court. Almost nobody comes back to court. They’re in our country, and we can’t do anything about it because the laws that were created by Democrats are so pathetic and so weak. So I told Mexico — and I respect what they did — I said, look, your laws are very powerful; your laws are very strong. We have very bad laws for our border, and we are going to be doing some things — I’ve been speaking with General Mattis — we’re going to be doing things militarily. Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.”^[113]

During an interview with The Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2018, Trump discussed how he could make Mexico pay for a border wall. He said, “They can pay for it through, as an example, they can pay for it indirectly through Nafta. OK? You know, we make a good deal on Nafta, say I’m going to take a small percentage of that money and it’s going to go toward the wall. Guess what? Mexico’s paying. Now Mexico may not want to make the Nafta deal and which is OK, then I’ll terminate Nafta…which I think would be frankly a positive for our country. I don’t think it’s a positive for Mexico, I don’t think it’s a positive for the world. But it’s a positive for our country because I’d make a much better deal. There is no deal that I can make on Nafta that’s as good as if I terminate Nafta and make a new deal. OK? But I feel that we have a chance of making a reasonable deal, the way it is now.”^[114]

During the same interview, Trump discussed his vision for a border wall. He said, “The wall’s never meant to be 2,100 miles long. We have mountains that are far better than a wall, we have violent rivers that nobody goes near, we have areas… But, you don’t need a wall where you have a natural barrier that’s far greater than any wall you could build, OK? Because somebody said oh, he’s going to make the wall smaller. I’m not going to make it smaller. The wall was always going to be a wall where we needed it. And there are some areas that are far greater than any wall we could build. So, maybe someday somebody could make that clear, Sarah, will you make that clear please? I saw on television, Donald Trump is going to make the wall smaller; no, the wall’s identical. The other thing about the wall is we’ve spent a great deal of time with the Border Patrol and with the ICE agents and they know this stuff better than anybody, they’re unbelievable. They both endorsed me, the only time they’ve ever endorsed a presidential candidate, OK? And they endorsed us unanimously. I had meetings with them, they need see-through. So, we need a form of fence or window. I said why you need that—makes so much sense? They said because we have to see who’s on the other side. If you have a wall this thick and it’s solid concrete from ground to 32 feet high which is a high wall, much higher than people planned. You go 32 feet up and you don’t know who’s over here. You’re here, you’ve got the wall and there’s some other people here.”^[114]

On January 9, 2018, during a meeting on immigration with a group of bipartisan members of Congress, Trump was asked if there would be any agreement on DACA without a border wall. Trump said, “No, there wouldn’t be. You need it. John, you need the wall. I mean, it’s wonderful — I’d love not to build the wall, but you need the wall. And I will tell you this, the ICE officers and the Border Patrol agents — I had them just recently on — they say, if you don’t have the wall — you know, in certain areas, obviously, that aren’t protected by nature — if you don’t have the wall, you cannot have security. You just can’t have it. It doesn’t work. And part of the problem we have is walls and fences that we currently have are in very bad shape. They’re broken. We have to get them fixed or rebuilt. But, you know, you speak to the agents, and I spoke to all of them. I spoke — I lived with them. They endorsed me for President, which they’ve never done before — the Border Patrol agents and ICE. They both endorsed Trump. And they never did that before. And I have a great relationship with them. They say, sir, without the wall, security doesn’t work; we’re all wasting time. Now, that doesn’t mean 2,000 miles of wall because you just don’t need that because of nature, because of mountains and rivers and lots of other things. But we need a certain portion of that border to have the wall. If we don’t have it, you can never have security. You could never stop that portion of drugs that comes through that area. Yes, it comes through planes and lots of other ways and ships. But a lot of it comes through the southern border. You can never fix the situation without additional wall. And we have to fix existing wall that we already have."^[115]

At a rally in Phoenix, Arizona on August 22, 2017, President Trump discussed the building and funding of the proposed border wall, stating, "We are building a wall on the southern border which is absolutely necessary. The obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it. But believe me, if we have to close down our government, we're building that wall."^[116]

Donald Trump discusses the construction of a border wall in February 2016.

In his first address to Congress on February 28, 2017, President Donald Trump discussed the enforcement of immigration laws and border security, saying, "By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed — but that can't happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders. For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border. It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime. As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised."^[117]

Reuters reported on February 9, 2017, that a Department of Homeland Security internal report found the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border could cost $21.6 billion and take 3.5 years to construct.^[118] Trump tweeted on February 11, 2017, "I am reading that the great border WALL will cost more than the government originally thought, but I have not gotten involved in ... the design or negotiations yet." He continued, "When I do, just like with the F-35 FighterJet or the Air Force One Program, price will come WAY DOWN!"^[119]

During a press conference on January 11, 2017, Trump said that construction of a wall along the United States' southern border would begin "immediately" after he was inaugurated and that Mexico would pay for it through a reimbursement. "We’re going to build a wall. I could wait about a year and a half until we finish our negotiations with Mexico, which will start immediately after we get to office. But I don't want to wait. Mike Pence is leading an effort to get final approvals through various agencies and through Congress for the wall to begin. I don’t feel like waiting a year or year and a half. We’re going to start building. Mexico, in some form, and there many different forms, will reimburse us and they will reimburse us for the cost of the wall," Trump said. He added that the form of the reimbursement would more likely be a tax than a payment.^[120]

In December 2016, the Trump transition team asked for records from the Department of Homeland Security regarding border wall and barrier construction along the Canadian and Mexican borders, immigration detention facilities, and aerial surveillance programs. The transition team also requested information about all immigration-related executive orders issued by President Barack Obama. On the campaign trail, Trump said that he intended to rescind Obama's executive orders on immigration, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.^[121]

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen

On January 9, 2018, during a meeting on immigration with a group of bipartisan members of Congress at the White House, Nielsen spoke about border security, saying, “The reason that border security is so important to have as part of this discussion is that it doesn’t solve the problem if we can apprehend people but we can’t remove them. So we need the wall system, which is some physical infrastructure as the President described — personnel and technology — but we have to close those legal loopholes, because the effect is that is this incredible pull up from Central America that just continues to exacerbate the problem. So border security has to be part of this or we will be here again in three, four, five years again — maybe, unfortunately, sooner. The other point I would just make is, the President asked DHS — he asked the men and women of DHS, what do you need to do your job? Congress and the American people have entrusted to you, the security of our country. What is it that you need? The list that we have provided is what we need to do our mission that you asked us to do. It’s not less than, it’s not more than; it is what we need to close those loopholes to be able to protect our country. So I would just encourage — everyone, much more eloquently than I can, described all the reasons why we all, I think, are committed to helping the DACA population. But to truly solve the problem, it’s got to be in conjunction with border security.^[115]

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly

During an interview on April 16, 2017, with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Kelly discussed securing the border. He said, “Chuck, you really do have to secure the border somehow, first and foremost. The very, very, very good news is, for a lot of different reasons, the number of illegal aliens that are moving up from the south has dropped off precipitously. I mean we're down 65%, 70% in the last two months. These are the months that we should see a steep incline in illegal movement. It's down, as I say, by almost 70%.”^[122]

When asked if he thought Trump’s rhetoric about getting tougher on border security contributed to the drop in illegal border crossings, Kelly said, “Well, certainly. … Absolutely. And some of the other things we've done on the border. I mean just my going down to the border on several occasions. You know that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, was just down there. The attention being paid to the border certainly has injected into those people-- and the vast majority of them are good people from Central America. But it's injected enough confusion in their minds, I think, and they're just waiting to see what actually does happen.”^[122]

On March 8, 2017, Kelly released a statement on a report that showed a decline in illegal border crossing. According to Kelly, "From January to February, the flow of illegal border crossings as measured by apprehensions and the prevention of inadmissible persons at our southern border dropped by 40 percent. The drop in apprehensions shows a marked change in trends. Since the Administration’s implementation of Executive Orders to enforce immigration laws, apprehensions and inadmissible activity is trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years. This change in the trend line is especially significant because CBP historically sees a 10-20 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants from January to February. Instead, this year we saw a drop from 31,578 to 18,762 persons - a 40 percent decline. This is encouraging news as in the period from Oct 1, 2016 to the Presidential inauguration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 157,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants – a 35 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, with family units increasing by more than 100 percent. However, since President Trump took office on January 20, we have seen a dramatic drop in numbers."^[123]

During an interview in November 2016, Kelly discussed Trump’s plan to build a Mexican border wall as one possible part of a border policy. Kelly said, “I think you have to have — we have a right to protect our borders, whether they’re seaward, coastlines, or land borders. We have a right to do that. Every country has a right to do that. Obviously, some form of control whether it's a wall or a fence. But if the countries where these migrants come from have reasonable levels of violence and reasonable levels of economic opportunity, then the people won’t leave to come here.”^[124]

While speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2015, Kelly said, “I believe we are overlooking a significant security threat. Despite the heroic efforts of our law enforcement colleagues, criminal organizations are constantly adapting their methods for trafficking across our borders. While there is not yet any indication that the criminal networks involved in human and drug trafficking are interested in supporting the efforts of terrorist groups, these networks could unwittingly, or even wittingly, facilitate the movement of terrorist operatives or weapons of mass destruction toward our borders, potentially undetected and almost completely unrestricted.”^[125]

During an interview in 2014, Kelly discussed the threat of "illegal drugs, weapons and people from Central America." He said, “In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance. Many argue these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree. ... All this corruption and violence is directly or indirectly due to the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs, particularly cocaine, heroin and now methamphetamines, all of which are produced in Latin America and smuggled into the U.S. along an incredibly efficient network along which anything – hundreds of tons of drugs, people, terrorists, potentially weapons of mass destruction or children – can travel, so long as they can pay the fare.”^[126]

External links

Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

[1] TIME, "Here's Donald Trump's Presidential Announcement Speech," June 16, 2015

[bordercrisis-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border," January 8, 2019

[demsaddress-3] 3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 The Wall Street Journal, "Democratic Leaders Denounce Wall, Call on Trump to Stop ‘Hostage’ Tactics," January 8, 2019

[4] WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory," February 15, 2019

[5] WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory," February 15, 2019

[rose-6] 6.0 ^6.1 The Hill, "Trump declares national emergency at border," February 15, 2019

[7] Senate.gov, "On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 31)," accessed February 15, 2019

[8] Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 87," accessed February 15, 2019

[appsumm-9] 9.0 ^9.1 Appropriations.Senate.gov, "Summary of Remaining FY2019 Appropriations Bills," accessed February 15, 2019

[10] Politico, "Congress averts shutdown as Trump prepares national emergency," February 14, 2019

[temp-11] 11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 Politico, "Trump announces deal to reopen government — without his wall," January 25, 2019

[sixteen-12] 12.0 ^12.1 ^12.2 ^12.3 The Wall Street Journal, "States File Suit Against Trump Administration Over Wall Emergency," February 18, 2019

[rollcall-13] 13.0 ^13.1 Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 94," accessed February 27, 2019

[14] Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019." accessed February 27, 2019

[politicores-15] 15.0 ^15.1 Politico, "House votes to block Trump's national emergency declaration," February 26, 2019

[hillres-16] 16.0 ^16.1 The Hill, "House votes to overturn Trump's emergency declaration," February 26, 2019

[17] The Hill, "Pentagon announces nearly 4,000 additional troops heading to US-Mexico border," February 3, 2019

[aprilfourmemo-18] 18.0 ^18.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security," April 4, 2018

[reopenproposal-19] 19.0 ^19.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Reopen the Government and Fund Border Security," January 19, 2019

[20] The Hill, "Trump pitches new plan to reopen government amid Dem pushback," January 19, 2019

[21] Senate.gov, "On the Cloture Motion (Motion Invoke Cloture on the Shelby Amdt. No. 5)," January 24, 2019

[22] Senate.gov, "On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Schumer Amdt. No. 6)," January 24, 2019

[23] The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Pushes for Wall, Democrats Say He Stokes Fear for Political Gain," January 9, 2019

[24] The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Walks Out of Shutdown Talks, Calls Them 'Total Waste of Time,'" January 10, 2019

[mpp-25] 25.0 ^25.1 ^25.2 DHS.gov, "Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration," December 20, 2018

[catch-26] 26.0 ^26.1 The Wall Street Journal, "'Catch and Return': U.S. to Send Some Migrants to Mexico to Await Proceedings," December 20, 2018

[27] DHS.gov, "Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker Statement on DHS-DOJ Asylum Regulation," November 8, 2018

[28] DHS.gov, "Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims," November 8, 2018

[29] WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump Is Upholding the Rule of Law and Ensuring Consequences for Those Who Illegally Cross Our Border," November 9, 2018

[30] DHS.gov, "DHS Myth vs. Fact: Asylum Proclamation and Rule," November 9, 2018

[31] The Hill, "Trump moves to restrict asylum claims at border," November 8, 2018

[32] WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States," November 9, 2018

[aclusue-33] 33.0 ^33.1 ^33.2 The Hill, "Groups sue Trump over order blocking asylum claims," November 9, 2018

[asy-34] BBC, "US migrant caravan: Trump's asylum ban halted by judge," November 20, 2018

[35] United States District Court for the Northern District of California, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, November 19, 2018

[wsjmore-36] 36.0 ^36.1 ^36.2 ^36.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Defense Secretary Approves Sending More Troops to Mexican Border," October 26, 2018

[37] The Wall Street Journal, "Trump to Deploy 5,200 Troops to Southern Border," October 30, 2018

[38] The Hill, "Trump says he may deploy 15,000 troops to border," October 31, 2018

[39] The Hill, "Overnight Defense," October 29, 2018

[40] The Hill, "Tensions escalate at US-Mexico border," November 25, 2018

[sanysidro-41] 41.0 ^41.1 DHS.gov, "Secretary Nielsen Statement On San Ysidro Port Of Entry Closure," November 25, 2018

[quotedisclaimer-42] Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[43] Congress.gov, "H.Res.990 - Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customers Enforcement," accessed July 19, 2018

[44] Congress.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 337," accessed July 19, 2018

[45] Breitbart, "House passes resolution supporting ICE," July 18, 2018

[46] Congress.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 337," accessed July 19, 2018

[47] Breitbart, "House passes resolution supporting ICE," July 18, 2018

[48] The Hill, "Senate Democrats block resolution supporting ICE," July 18, 2018

[49] The Hill, "Trump says he will sign 'something' to end family separations," June 20, 2018

[50] The Guardian, "Donald Trump pledges to end family separations by executive order," June 20, 2018

[51] Politico, "Trump signs executive action halting family separations," June 20, 2018

[52] Reuters UK, "Trump backs down on separating immigration children, legal problems remain," accessed June 21, 2018

[53] United States District Court for the Central District of California, "Flores v. Sessions: Order Denying Defendants' 'Ex Parte Application for Limited Relief from Settlement Agreement," July 9, 2018

[54] Reuters, "Judge rejects Trump administration request for long-term detention of immigrant children," July 9, 2018

[55] Reuters, "U.S. military may house immigrant children as Trump policy beset by confusion," June 21, 2018

[56] Associated Press, "Confusion swirls on border after Trump reversal on families," June 22, 2018

[57] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification," June 23, 2018

[58] ACLU, "Ms. L v. ICE - Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion For Classwide Preliminary Injunction," accessed June 27, 2018

[59] NBC News, "Trump admin asks for more time to reunite kids and parents separated at border," July 6, 2018

[60] The Washington Post, "More than 50 separated children to be reunited with parents Tuesday," July 9, 2018

[61] Bloomberg, "Immigration Deadline for Reuniting Families Remains, Judge Says," July 10, 2018

[62] The Hill, "Trump administration says it has completed reunifying migrant kids under 5," July 12, 2018

[63] The Hill, "Judge temporarily halts Trump admin from deporting reunited families," July 16, 2018

[64] ABC News, "Judge temporarily halts deportation of reunified families," July 16, 2018

[65] The Hill, "Hundreds of migrant children still separated from parents as deadline nears," July 26, 2018

[66] The Seattle Times, "AG Ferguson: Washington, other states to sue Trump administration over separating immigrant families at border," June 21, 2018

[67] CNBC, "17 states sue Trump administration over family separations," June 26, 2018

[68] Governing, "17 States Sue Trump Over Family Separations at the Border," June 27, 2018

[eoreactions-69] 69.0 ^69.1 ^69.2 Newsmax, "Lawmakers React to Trump Order Stopping Family Separations," June 20, 2018

[70] Nancy Pelosi: Democratic Leader, "Pelosi Statement on Trump's Family Detention Plan," June 20, 2018

[71] The Wall Street Journal, "Stiffened U.S. Approach to Illegal Border Crossings Will Separate Families," May 7, 2018

[72] Justice.gov, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration," May 7, 2018

[separate-73] 73.0 ^73.1 The Wall Street Journal, "New Policy of Separating Immigrant Families Draws Criticism," May 8, 2018

[flores-74] 74.0 ^74.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Defends Its Immigration Policies," May 29, 2018

[75] The Hill, "GOP senators push for clarification on migrant family separations," June 17, 2018

[hillresponsesJune17-76] 76.0 ^76.1 The Hill, "DHS secretary defends Trump administrations' migrant policies," June 17, 2018

[politicoresponses-77] 77.0 ^77.1 Politico, "Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations," June 18, 2018

[78] The Hill, "Sessions on separating families: If we build a wall and pass legislation, we won't have these 'terrible choices,'" June 18, 2018

[79] White House, "Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration," June 19, 2018

[wapo61918-80] 80.0 ^80.1 The Washington Post, "Senate Republicans just rebuked Trump on family separations," June 19, 2018

[81] The New York Times, "G.O.P Moves to End Trump's Family Separation Policy, but Can't Agree How," June 19, 2018

[willdeploy-82] 82.0 ^82.1 The Hill, "Trump says he will deploy U.S. military to southern border," April 3, 2018

[apguard-83] 83.0 ^83.1 ^83.2 ^83.3 Associated Press, "Trump troop request creates opening for governors to say no," April 6, 2018

[84] The Hill, "Trump to deploy National Guard to southern border," April 4, 2018

[gos-85] 85.0 ^85.1 ^85.2 ^85.3 ^85.4 ^85.5 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Unveils Plans to Send National Guard Troops, Build Base Walls Near U.S.-Mexico Border," April 4, 2018

[86] WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump in Press Gaggle en route Washington, D.C." April 5, 2018

[87] The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Calls for Military to Guard Southern Border," April 3, 2018

[88] Associated Press, "Correction: Trump story on securing US-Mexico border," April 5, 2018

[89] The Hill, "California gov accepts funding to add National Guard troops, blasts Trump over immigration," April 11, 2018

[90] The Hill, "Officials: California 'not participating' yet in Trump's border protection push," April 16, 2018

[91] Congress.gov, "H.R.1625 - TARGET Act," accessed March 22, 2018

[92] WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 1625," March 23, 2018

[93] Twitter, "Donald J. Trump," March 23, 2018

[massive-94] Politico, "Massive spending deal clinched despite Trump’s misgivings," March 21, 2018

[easily-95] The Hill, "House easily passes $1.3 trillion spending bill," March 22, 2018

[96] Bloomberg, "Trump Inspects Border Wall Prototypes in California," March 13, 2018

[97] The Wall Street Journal, "'Dreamer’ Talks Aim to End Budget Impasse," February 4, 2018

[98] The Hill, "Senate rejects bipartisan measure as immigration votes begin," February 15, 2018

[99] Toomey.Senate.gov, "Toomey Introduces Amendment to End Dangerous Sanctuary City Policies," February 13, 2018

[100] The Hill, "Senate Dems block crackdown on sanctuary cities," February 15, 2018

[lifesupport-101] Politico, "Senate immigration deal on life support," February 14, 2018

[102] The Hill, "Senate rejects centrist immigration bill after Trump veto threat," February 15, 2018

[103] The Hill, "Senate rejects Trump immigration plan," February 15, 2018

[whframework-104] 104.0 ^104.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "White House Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security," January 25, 2018

[plan-105] 105.0 ^105.1 ^105.2 The Hill, "Trump to support path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers," January 25, 2018

[offer-106] 106.0 ^106.1 ^106.2 ^106.3 Politico, "White House jumps back into Dreamer battle with citizenship offer," January 25, 2018

[107] The Hill, "Five hurdles to getting an immigration deal," January 27, 2018

[cato-108] Cato.org, "White House Plan Bans 22 Million Legal Immigrants over 5 Decades," January 29, 2018

[dhslist-109] 109.0 ^109.1 ^109.2 ^109.3 ^109.4 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Seeks $18 Billion Over Decade to Expand Border Wall," January 5, 2018

[110] White House, "Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," January 25, 2017

[111] ABC News, "McConnell, Ryan Say Congress Will Pay for Trump's $12B Border Wall," January 26, 2017

[112] CNN, "Trump floats 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall, but considering other options," January 26, 2017

[baltic-113] WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump Before a Working Lunch with Heads of the Baltic States," April 3, 2018

[transcriptwsj-114] 114.0 ^114.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Transcript of Donald Trump Interview With The Wall Street Journal," January 14, 2018

[biimmmtg-115] 115.0 ^115.1 WhiteHouse.gov Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with Bipartisan Members of Congress on Immigration, January 9, 2018

[116] Time, "Trump's 2017 Phoenix, Arizona Rally Full Speech Transcript," August 23, 2017

[CongressFeb-117] The Washington Post, "President Trump’s surprisingly presidential speech to the nation, annotated," February 28, 2017

[118] Reuters, "Exclusive - Trump border 'wall' to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: internal report," February 9, 2017

[119] CNN, "Without citing specifics, Trump vows to keep costs down on border wall," February 11, 2017

[120] NPR, "Donald Trump's Press Conference," January 11, 2017

[121] Reuters, "Exclusive: Trump team seeks agency records on border barriers, surveillance," January 4, 2017

[todd-122] 122.0 ^122.1 NBC News, "Meet the Press - April 16, 2017," accessed April 18, 2017

[123] DHS.gov, "Statement by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly on Southwest Border Security," accessed April 7, 2017

[124] Military Times, "Donald Trump could tap this tough-talking general to secure America's borders," accessed December 7, 2016

[125] United States Southern Command, "Posture Statement Of General John F. Kelly, United States Marine Corps Commander, United States Southern Command," accessed December 7, 2016

[126] Defense One, "Top General Says Mexico Border Security Now ‘Existential’ Threat to U.S." accessed December 7, 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]