Federal policy on immigration enforcement and visa programs, 2017-2020

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

Immigration policy determines who may become a new citizen of the United States or enter the country as a temporary worker, student, refugee, or permanent resident. The federal government is responsible for setting and enforcing most immigration policy, while states primarily assume a supportive role. The executive branch, in particular, has wide authority over immigration policy.

President Donald Trump indicated that changing immigration policy would be among his top three priorities. He identified two policy areas he would address: deporting individuals with criminal records who are residing in the country without legal permission and ending visa program abuse.

June 18, 2020: SCOTUS rules DHS did not properly follow APA when seeking to end DACA

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (DHS) that DHS did not properly follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedures when it sought to end the program in 2017. Though DHS started the program in 2012 with a memo that itself did not go through the APA rulemaking process, the court’s ruling argued that DHS failed to provide required analysis of all relevant factors associated with ending the DACA program. The majority opinion argued that that made the decision arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court remanded the issue back to DHS, which can reattempt to end the program by providing a more thorough explanation for its decision.^[1]

February 21, 2020: SCOTUS allows public charge rule to take effect

On February 21, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to allow the Inadmissability on Public Charge Grounds final rule, also known as the public charge rule, to take effect on February 24, 2020.^[2]^[3] The practice of considering self-sufficiency in immigration proceedings in the United States predates the Trump administration. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, beginning in the 1800s "Congress has put into statute that aliens are inadmissible to the United States if they are unable to care for themselves without becoming public charges. Since 1996, federal laws have stated that aliens generally must be self-sufficient." The main law implementing this policy is the amended Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.^[3]

On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule on the Inadmissability on Public Charge Grounds that modified the definition of a public charge and public benefits as governed by the statute. Under the final rule, the administration clarified the meaning of "likely at any time to become a public charge" as applying to any individual who is likely to receive public benefits for 12 months in a 36-month period. The phrase was previously defined as applying only to individuals likely to become primarily dependent on public benefits.

The final rule also expanded the programs considered to be public benefits, the receipt of which can result in an individual being considered a public charge. Prior to the final rule, three cash-based assistance program categories were admissible for consideration: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and general cash relief or assistance from state government. The final rule added the following programs to the definition of public benefits: non-emergency Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance; and Public Housing. The final rule also clarifies the range of factors that will be considered when assessing whether an individual is considered to be a public charge.^[4]^[5]

The final rule was initially scheduled to become effective on October 15, 2019, but injunctions from several federal courts prevented the rule from going into effect on that date.^[6] In January 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift the injunctions applying to all states except Illinois, which was under a separate injunction.^[7] On February 21, SCOTUS issued a decision to overturn the stay in Illinois in the case Wolf v. Cook County, Ill., which allowed the rule to take effect nationwide.^[8]

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.^[9]

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.”^[10]

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.”^[10]

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.).^[11]

In the House, 213 Democrats and 87 Republicans voted for the bill. One hundred and nine Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against the bill.^[12]

The package of seven spending bills included funding for the following departments and agencies through September 30, 2019:^[13]

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.^[14]^[13]

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.^[15]

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.^[16]

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.”^[16]

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.^[16]

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.^[16]

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.^[17]^[18]

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.).^[17]

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.”^[19]

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.”^[19]

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.”^[20]

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.”^[20]

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.^[21]

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."^[22]

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.”^[23]

Trump’s plan included the following:^[23]

$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.”^[24]

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.^[25]

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.^[26]

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.^[15]

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.^[15]

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.”^[27]

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.^[27]

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.”^[27]

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.”^[28]

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.”^[28]

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.^[29]^[30]

December 21, 2018: Trump pledges government shutdown unless border wall funding secured

On December 21, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the government would shut down unless border wall funding was included in a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government beyond midnight on December 22. The statement came after the Senate passed a CR that did not include funds for a border wall on December 19. In response, the House passed an amended CR that included $5 billion in funding for a border wall. The Senate would have to accept the amendments from the House in order to send the CR to Trump's desk. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Senate was not expected to pass the CR that included border wall funding.^[31]

Child Protection Improvements Act of 2017 (HR 695)

Bill Passed (217-185) on December 20, 2018

Proposed providing continuing FY2019 appropriations to several federal agencies through February 8, 2019.^[32]

The details: The House passed a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government until February 8, 2019, by a vote of 217-185, with 31 members not voting. The resolution included $5 billion in funding for a border wall.^[33]

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.^[34]

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."^[34]

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.^[34]

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) praised the policy change, saying it would bring “sanity to our asylum policies that have been exploited and abused.”^[35]

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.”^[35]

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.^[36]^[37]^[38]

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.^[39]^[40]

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.”^[41]

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.^[42]

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.”^[42]

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."^[42]

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."^[43]^[44] Click here to read the full ruling.

November 8, 2018: Ninth Circuit Court rules Trump administration cannot end DACA

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On November 8, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Ruling that the administration's reasons for ending DACA were arbitrary, the court wrote, “DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.”^[45]^[46]

"All three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents but they didn’t all adopt the same reasoning Thursday. Two said the Trump administration had likely violated principles of administrative law, while the third thought the rescission of DACA may have been motivated by unconstitutional racial animus, in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection," according to The Wall Street Journal.^[45]

In response to the decision, Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford said, “While we are disappointed with today’s ruling, we are pleased that the court has finally acted and that the Supreme Court now can consider our petition for review.”^[45]

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the ruling, saying, “Today’s decision is a tremendous victory for our young immigrant Dreamers and the rule of law. In California and across our nation, Dreamers significantly enrich our communities as scholars, entrepreneurs, first responders and much more. This fight, of course, is far from over. We will continue to defend Dreamers and DACA all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.”^[45]

DACA, which was established by the Obama administration in 2012, protected individuals who were brought to the United States as children without legal permission from deportation and allowed those individuals to go to school and work.

October 30, 2018: Trump proposes ending birthright citizenship

During an interview released on October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump said that he would sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship, the right to citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to non-citizens and individuals residing in the country without legal permission.^[47]

Speaking about birthright citizenship, Trump said, "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." According to Axios, more than 30 countries have some form of birthright citizenship.^[47]

If Trump signs the order, the courts would likely have to decide if it is constitutional. The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The amendment granted full citizenship to former slaves. In 1898, the Supreme Court addressed birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a child born to Chinese parents living in the U.S., was a citizen. According to Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Obama administration, the Supreme Court has only ruled that children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy occupiers are not eligible for birthright citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether birthright citizenship applies to the children of individuals in the country without legal permission or those with temporary visas.^[47]^[48]

At a Politico event, Vice President Mike Pence used this argument as support for the executive order, saying, "The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.”^[49]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized Trump’s proposal in a tweet, writing, "This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order."^[49]

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said that Trump announced the executive order to get Republicans to vote. She said, "He’ll say anything before the election. Don’t take the bait. Focus on ending the hate. Hug a kid. Be nice to someone you don’t know or agree with. And vote. Please vote."^[49]

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that Trump did not have the authority to end birthright citizenship by executive order. He said, "As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.”^[50]

Graham says he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he supported Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship and would introduce legislation to end it. Graham wrote in a series of tweets,

“

Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform – and at the same time – the elimination of birthright citizenship. The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth. This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end. In addition, I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President @realDonaldTrump.” I will be introducing legislation to deal with the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants -- in a prospective manner -- as I have always contended it has become a magnet for illegal immigration in modern times.”^[53]

”

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.^[54]^[55]

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."^[56]

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.^[54]^[57]

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.”^[54]

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.”^[54]

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.^[58]^[59]

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.^[53]

”

June 20, 2018: Trump signs an executive order addressing the separation of children from parents crossing the border illegally

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.^[60]^[61]^[62]

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."^[63]^[64]^[65]

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.^[66]

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.^[67]

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.^[68]

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."^[69]^[70]^[71]
- 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.^[72]
- 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."^[73]
- 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.^[74]^[75]
- 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.^[76]
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.^[77] On June 26, six other states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia—joined the lawsuit.^[78]^[79]
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."^[80]
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."^[80]
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."^[81]
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."^[80]

June 11, 2018: Sessions says individuals who are victims of private crime not eligible for asylum

On June 11, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that individuals who are victims of private crime, including domestic and gang violence, in their home country will no longer automatically qualify for asylum in the U.S. Sessions said in a statement, “Our nation’s immigration laws provide for asylum to be granted to individuals who have been persecuted, or who have a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of their membership in a ‘particular social group,’ but most victims of personal crimes do not fit this definition—no matter how vile and reprehensible the crime perpetrated against them.”^[82]

Sessions’ decision overturned two asylum rulings from the federal immigration appeals board. In 2016, the board ruled that a Salvadoran woman who came to the U.S. to escape physical and emotional abuse inflicted by her husband should be granted asylum. In 2014, the appeals board ruled that married women from Central America who were not allowed to leave their abusive marriages could apply for asylum because they were members of “a particular social group.”^[82]^[83]

Sessions said of the 2014 decision, “The mere fact that a country may have problems policing certain crimes effectively — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”^[83]

Michelle Brané, the director of the Women’s Refugee Commission’s Migrant Rights and Justice program, criticized Sessions' decision, saying, “Attorney General Sessions’ decision to limit the reasons why people can claim asylum is a devastating blow to families who come to our country seeking protection and safety.”^[82]

Jason Cone, executive director of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières said the decision was “an extension of a ruthless pattern by the Trump Administration of targeting neglected and at-risk people, such as refugees, unaccompanied minors fleeing forced gang conscription and women in need of lifesaving reproductive-health services.”^[82]

December 19, 2018: Judge blocks asylum policy

On December 19, 2018, Judge Emmet Sullivan called the Trump administration's asylum policy “arbitrary” and “capricious,” and ruled in favor of 12 adults and children who challenged the policy. The individuals claimed to have been sexually abused, kidnapped, and beaten in their home countries and sought asylum in the United States.^[84]

In his opinion, Sullivan wrote that the Trump administration's asylum policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He wrote that the policy was "inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the INA. And because it is the will of Congress—not the whims of the Executive—that determines the standard for expedited removal, the Court finds that those policies are unlawful." The ruling prevents the Trump administration from deporting asylum seekers who are victims of domestic and gang violence in their home country.^[85]

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to stay a broad application of the ruling. The DOJ said, “Should this court’s decision not hold up on appeal, it would result in changing and confusing alterations of the policies needed to screen tens of thousands of aliens arriving at our borders."^[84]

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.^[86]

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.”^[87]

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.”^[88]

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.”^[88]

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.^[89]

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.”^[89]

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."^[90]

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."^[91]

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."^[91]

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."^[92]

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."^[92] 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."^[93]

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."^[94]

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."^[95] 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.^[95] 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."^[96]

May 1, 2018: Texas and six other states file lawsuit to end DACA

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On May 1, 2018, Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for continuing to administer the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The states argued that DACA is unlawful and requires them to spend more money on healthcare, law enforcement, and education. They also argued that DACA has resulted in increased competition for jobs in their states. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia joined Texas in filing the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.^[97]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explained his decision to file the lawsuit, saying, "The multi-state coalition lawsuit we filed today is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy. The Constitution guarantees the American people the right to set their own immigration policies through their representatives in Congress. The federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization."^[98]

In the lawsuit, Paxton argued that establishing DACA through an executive order was unconstitutional. The lawsuit stated, "The policy merits of immigration laws are debated in and decided by Congress. The Executive Branch does not exercise a lawmaking role. Its duty is to take care that the law is faithfully executed — substantive immigration law and procedural administrative law alike."^[98]

The lawsuit said that although the court "has authority to immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful," the states would be satisfied if the federal government was ordered to stop issuing new permits and renewing existing ones. This would lead to the end of the program within two years as existing DACA permits expire.^[98]

April 24, 2018: Judge rules Trump administration must continue accepting new DACA applications

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On April 24, 2018, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the Trump administration had to continue accepting new applications from individuals seeking benefits under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Previous rulings only required the administration to process renewal requests. The order did not take effect immediately. The Trump administration had 90 days to explain its decision to end DACA.^[99]^[100]

Bates called the administration's cancellation of DACA “arbitrary and capricious” because he determined that the administration did not explain why the program was unlawful. He wrote, “Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.”^[99]

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley commented on the ruling, saying, “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”^[99]

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."^[22]

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.”^[101]

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."^[102]^[103]^[104]

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."^[105]

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."^[101]

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."^[104]

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.”^[106]

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.”^[107]

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.”^[104]

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (R) said that she was supportive of the deployment.^[104]

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.”^[104]

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."^[102]

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.^[102]

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."^[102]

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.”^[104]

April 2, 2018: Justice Department announces quotas for immigration judges

On April 2, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced quotas for immigration judges aimed at shortening the backlog of immigration cases. The quota requires judges to close 700 cases per year. Critics of the new policy argued that the quota system will prevent defendants from acquiring enough evidence to support their cases.^[108]

March 28, 2018: Trump shares photos of construction on U.S.-Mexico border

On March 28, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted photos of a construction site in Calexico, California, writing that it was the start of construction on his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen shared the tweet, adding that the “30ft wall will help secure the area near Calexico, CA.” Border Patrol officials in California said that the construction seen in President Trump’s tweets had been planned since 2009.^[109]

March 20, 2018: Trump claims sanctuary cities harbor criminals

On March 20, 2018, President Donald Trump spoke at a law enforcement roundtable and commented on sanctuary cities, saying “They’re causing a lot of problems for this country.” Trump said that immigrants who came into the U.S. illegally “go into those sanctuary cities when they see them; they go there because they feel they’re safe,” and subsequently commit crimes.^[110]

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.”^[111]

March 6, 2018: DOJ files lawsuit against California's immigration laws

On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra for passing three state laws—Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103—that the DOJ said prevent officials from enforcing federal immigration law. The DOJ is asking a federal judge to block the implementation of the laws.^[112]

According to a DOJ press release, "The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, the Justice Department is seeking to permanently enjoin these state statutes, which are contrary to federal law and interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties."^[112]

The lawsuit targets the following California state laws:

California SB 54: According to the DOJ, the law "restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody. These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law. ... SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement. The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings."

California AB 450: According to the DOJ, the law "prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations. It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements."

California AB 103: According to the DOJ, the law "imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution."

Speaking about the lawsuit, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President. California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”^[112]

Brown responded to the lawsuit on Twitter, writing, “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”^[113]

Becerra also weighed in, saying, “In California, our state laws work in concert with federal law. Our teams work together to go after drug dealers and go after gang violence. What we won’t do is change from being focused on public safety. We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation.”^[113]

On March 7, 2018, during a speech at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association, Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed California's immigration laws and the lawsuit filed by the DOJ. He said, "California is using every power it has—and some it doesn’t—to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them. ... We are going to fight these irrational, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers. We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. We are fighting to have a lawful system of immigration that serves Americans. And we intend to win."^[114]

February 27, 2018: Federal judge rules administration did not improperly waive regulations for wall construction

On February 27, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled in favor of the Trump administration in a case filed by the state of California regarding environmental regulation waivers for the construction the U.S.-Mexico border wall. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security improperly waived environmental and immigration regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act, to expedite construction of the wall. Judge Curiel sided with the Trump administration, writing that he did not have “serious constitutional doubts” about the administration’s use of waivers.^[115]

February 26, 2018: SCOTUS denies Trump administration's request to review DACA case

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) denied the Trump administration's request to immediately review a U.S. district court's ruling that temporarily blocked the administration's September 2017 order ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The district court issued a preliminary injunction on February 13, 2018, and the Trump administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court rather than to the circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court denied the order without prejudice, meaning that the administration may appeal again after the circuit court of appeals has a chance to consider the case.^[116]

Under the Trump administration's September order, the DACA program was supposed to end on March 5, 2018. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal leaves the district court's ruling blocking that recession in place for now. Federal judges in San Francisco and New York issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Trump administration to continue renewing DACA permits. While the cases against the Trump administration work their way through the courts, DACA recipients can continue to renew their permits to live, work, and go to school in the U.S. The permits are issued for two-year periods. Without the injunctions, DACA recipients would have lost their benefits after their individual permits expired following the stated March 5, 2018, end date for the program.^[117]^[118]

White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah commented on SCOTUS’ decision saying, “The district judge’s decision unilaterally to re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process. We look forward to having this case expeditiously heard by the appeals court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail.”^[119]

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.^[120]^[121]

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.^[122]^[123]

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.^[124]^[125]

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 or family-based migration, and eliminating the visa lottery system.^[126]

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 31, 2018: Trump administration announces new process for asylum applications

On January 31, 2018, the Trump administration said that it would return to the process of reviewing the most recent applications for asylum, instead of the order in which they were received. In December 2014, the Obama administration changed the policy to prioritize the oldest cases first. The new process requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agents to first process applications in which an interview had to be rescheduled and applications that have been pending for 21 days or fewer. Then, applications starting with the newest and working back to the oldest will be processed.^[127]

L. Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, commented on the change in policy in the following statement: “Delays in the timely processing of asylum applications are detrimental to legitimate asylum seekers. Lingering backlogs can be exploited and used to undermine national security and the integrity of the asylum system.”^[127]

According to The Wall Street Journal, “The backlog—which now stands at 311,000 pending cases—allows new unauthorized border crossers to stay in the U.S. if they can pass a test showing they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution in their home countries. Many of these migrants turn themselves into border-patrol agents, believing they will be allowed to stay. The Trump administration argues that many of their claims are fraudulent and is seeking to discourage them from crossing.”^[127]

Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association criticized the move, saying, “This is another blow to Lady Liberty and to America’s commitment to ensure those facing persecution are not returned to life-threatening persecution and violence.”^[127]

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.^[128]^[129]^[130]

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.”^[130]

The immigration plan included:^[128]^[129]^[130]

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."^[130]

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.”^[129]

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."^[131]

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."^[132]

Trump on immigration enforcement and visa programs in 2017

President Donald Trump

In an interview with 60 Minutes on November 13, 2016, Trump said that immigration would be one of his top three priorities at the start of his presidency. Trump said he planned to target criminals to deport. "What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally. After the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that you’re talking about who are terrific people," he said. Trump also said he would accept fencing along portions of the United States-Mexico border, but added that in "certain areas, a wall is more appropriate. I’m very good at this, it’s called construction."^[133]

On December 22, 2016, former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said that Trump would not impose an immigration ban on Muslims or use religion as a trigger for heightened security. "You're going back to over a year ago in what he said about the [Muslim] ban versus what he said later about it, when he made it much more specific and talked about countries where we know that they've got a higher propensity of training and exporting terrorists," she said.^[134]

On November 21, 2016, Trump released a video message summarizing six priorities for his administration in its first 100 days. On immigration, Trump said that he would "direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker."^[135]

115th Congress on immigration enforcement and visa programs

March 8, 2017: Members of the House Judiciary Committee indicated that the EB-5 immigrant investor program—which allows individuals who invest $1 million in the U.S. or $500,000 in high unemployment areas to obtain a green card—should be altered or discontinued at the end of April. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said, "The days of last-minute extensions and continuing resolutions are over. Let me repeat that: No more extensions in CRs." Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) similarly said, "I must reiterate to achieve the necessary reforms to the EB5 programs, there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution, and absent significant reform, either regulatory or legislative, I will not be able to support continued authorization of this program." Proposals to modify the program included raising the minimum investment threshold from $500,000 to $1.35 million and narrowing the requirements for what qualifies as a high unemployment area.^[136]

February 7, 2017: Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) announced the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which would reduce legal immigration by 50 percent. The bill would eliminate immigration preferences for certain categories of extended and adult family members, end the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, and limit permanent refugee resettlement to 50,000 individuals per year.^[137]

January 29, 2017: U.S. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued the following joint statement, in part, in opposition to Trump's executive orders on the refugee admission program and immigration:

“

Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.

It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.^[53]

”

—U.S. Sens. John Mcain and Lindsey Graham^[138]

External links

Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

[opinion-1] Supreme Court of the United States, "Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California," June 18, 2020

[publiccharge-2] The New York Times, "In Case on Wealth Test for Green Cards, a Scathing Sotomayor Dissent," February 21, 2020

[uscis-3] 3.0 ^3.1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Public Charge," accessed April 21, 2020

[4] Federal Register, "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," August 14, 2019

[5] CLINIC, "DHS Finalizes Public Charge Rule," August 12, 2019

[6] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Public Charge Fact Sheet," accessed April 21, 2020

[7] CNN, "5-4 Supreme Court allows rule to take effect that could reshape legal immigration," January 27, 2020

[8] Supreme Court of the United States, "Wolf v. Cook County," February 21, 2020

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

[rose-10] 10.0 ^10.1 The Hill, "Trump declares national emergency at border," February 15, 2019

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

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

[appsumm-13] 13.0 ^13.1 Appropriations.Senate.gov, "Summary of Remaining FY2019 Appropriations Bills," accessed February 15, 2019

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

[temp-15] 15.0 ^15.1 ^15.2 Politico, "Trump announces deal to reopen government — without his wall," January 25, 2019

[sixteen-16] 16.0 ^16.1 ^16.2 ^16.3 The Wall Street Journal, "States File Suit Against Trump Administration Over Wall Emergency," February 18, 2019

[rollcall-17] 17.0 ^17.1 Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 94," accessed February 27, 2019

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

[politicores-19] 19.0 ^19.1 Politico, "House votes to block Trump's national emergency declaration," February 26, 2019

[hillres-20] 20.0 ^20.1 The Hill, "House votes to overturn Trump's emergency declaration," February 26, 2019

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

[aprilfourmemo-22] 22.0 ^22.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security," April 4, 2018

[reopenproposal-23] 23.0 ^23.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Reopen the Government and Fund Border Security," January 19, 2019

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

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

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

[bordercrisis-27] 27.0 ^27.1 ^27.2 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border," January 8, 2019

[demsaddress-28] 28.0 ^28.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Democratic Leaders Denounce Wall, Call on Trump to Stop ‘Hostage’ Tactics," January 8, 2019

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

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

[31] The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Pledges Long Government Shutdown Without Border-Wall Funding," December 21, 2018

[32] Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 472," accessed December 21, 2018

[33] NBC News, "House passes stopgap funding bill with $5 billion for Trump's border wall, at odds with Senate," December 20, 2018

[mpp-34] 34.0 ^34.1 ^34.2 DHS.gov, "Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration," December 20, 2018

[catch-35] 35.0 ^35.1 The Wall Street Journal, "'Catch and Return': U.S. to Send Some Migrants to Mexico to Await Proceedings," December 20, 2018

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

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

[38] 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

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

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

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

[aclusue-42] 42.0 ^42.1 ^42.2 The Hill, "Groups sue Trump over order blocking asylum claims," November 9, 2018

[asy-43] BBC, "US migrant caravan: Trump's asylum ban halted by judge," November 20, 2018

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

[ninth-45] 45.0 ^45.1 ^45.2 ^45.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Appeals Court Rules Against Trump on Canceling DACA Protections," November 8, 2018

[46] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "18-15068 The Regents of the University Of California And Janet Napolitano v. United States Department Of Homeland Security and Kirstjen Nielsen," November 12, 2018

[axios14-47] 47.0 ^47.1 ^47.2 Axios, "Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order," October 30, 2018

[48] Politico, "Can Trump revoke birthright citizenship? Nearly all on left and right say no." October 30, 2018

[hill14-49] 49.0 ^49.1 ^49.2 The Hill, "Graham to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship," October 30, 2018

[50] Politico, "Speaker Ryan: 'You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,'" October 30, 2018

[51] Twitter, "LindseyGrahamSC," October 30, 2018

[52] Twitter, "LindseyGrahamSC," October 30, 2018

[quotedisclaimer-53] 53.0 ^53.1 ^53.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[wsjmore-54] 54.0 ^54.1 ^54.2 ^54.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Defense Secretary Approves Sending More Troops to Mexican Border," October 26, 2018

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

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

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

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

[sanysidro-59] 59.0 ^59.1 DHS.gov, "Secretary Nielsen Statement On San Ysidro Port Of Entry Closure," November 25, 2018

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

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

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

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

[64] 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eoreactions-80] 80.0 ^80.1 ^80.2 Newsmax, "Lawmakers React to Trump Order Stopping Family Separations," June 20, 2018

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

[cantalways-82] 82.0 ^82.1 ^82.2 ^82.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Sessions Rules Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence Can’t Always Win Asylum," June 11, 2018

[blockmost-83] 83.0 ^83.1 Politico, "Sessions moves to block asylum for most victims of domestic, gang violence," June 11, 2018

[strikesdown-84] 84.0 ^84.1 Politico, "Judge strikes down Trump policy blocking domestic violence victims from asylum," December 19, 2018

[85] United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Opinion, Grace, et al. v. Matthew G. Whitaker," December 19, 2018

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

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

[separate-88] 88.0 ^88.1 The Wall Street Journal, "New Policy of Separating Immigrant Families Draws Criticism," May 8, 2018

[flores-89] 89.0 ^89.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Defends Its Immigration Policies," May 29, 2018

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

[hillresponsesJune17-91] 91.0 ^91.1 The Hill, "DHS secretary defends Trump administrations' migrant policies," June 17, 2018

[politicoresponses-92] 92.0 ^92.1 Politico, "Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations," June 18, 2018

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

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

[wapo61918-95] 95.0 ^95.1 The Washington Post, "Senate Republicans just rebuked Trump on family separations," June 19, 2018

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

[97] Politico, "Texas, six other states call for immediate halt to Dreamer program," May 2, 2018

[paxusa-98] 98.0 ^98.1 ^98.2 USA Today, "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton files 7-state lawsuit seeking to end DACA," May 1, 2018

[bates-99] 99.0 ^99.1 ^99.2 The Wall Street Journal, "Judge Rules Trump Administration Must Continue DACA Program," April 24, 2018

[100] USA Today, "Another federal judge rules against Trump move to end DACA," April 24, 2018

[willdeploy-101] 101.0 ^101.1 The Hill, "Trump says he will deploy U.S. military to southern border," April 3, 2018

[apguard-102] 102.0 ^102.1 ^102.2 ^102.3 Associated Press, "Trump troop request creates opening for governors to say no," April 6, 2018

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

[gos-104] 104.0 ^104.1 ^104.2 ^104.3 ^104.4 ^104.5 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Unveils Plans to Send National Guard Troops, Build Base Walls Near U.S.-Mexico Border," April 4, 2018

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

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

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

[108] The Hill, "Trump administration sets quotas for immigration judges," April 2, 2018

[109] The Hill, "Trump shares photos touting 'the start' of border wall," March 28, 2018

[110] White House.gov, "Remarks by President Trump at Law Enforcement Roundtable on Sanctuary Cities," March 20, 2018

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

[dojcali-112] 112.0 ^112.1 ^112.2 Justice.gov, "Justice Department Files Preemption Lawsuit Against the State of California to Stop Interference with Federal Immigration Authorities," March 7, 2018

[caresponse-113] 113.0 ^113.1 The New York Times, "Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws," March 6, 2018

[cpoa-114] Justice.gov, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks at the 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day Hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association," March 7, 2018

[115] The Hill, "Mexican-American judge who Trump attacked rules in favor of border wall," February 27, 2018

[116] United States Supreme Court, "Order List," February 26, 2018

[DACAop-117] United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, "Batalia Vidal et al. v. Trump" Amended Memorandum & Order & Preliminary Injunction

[alsup-118] Reuters, "U.S. judge blocks Trump move to end DACA program for immigrants," January 9, 2018

[119] The Hill, "Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump challenge on DACA," February 26, 2018

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

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

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

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

[lifesupport-124] Politico, "Senate immigration deal on life support," February 14, 2018

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

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

[asylumapps-127] 127.0 ^127.1 ^127.2 ^127.3 The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. to Prioritize Recent Asylum Applications," January 31, 2018

[whframework-128] 128.0 ^128.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "White House Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security," January 25, 2018

[plan-129] 129.0 ^129.1 ^129.2 The Hill, "Trump to support path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers," January 25, 2018

[offer-130] 130.0 ^130.1 ^130.2 ^130.3 Politico, "White House jumps back into Dreamer battle with citizenship offer," January 25, 2018

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

[cato-132] Cato.org, "White House Plan Bans 22 Million Legal Immigrants over 5 Decades," January 29, 2018

[133] CBS News, "President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes," November 13, 2016

[134] CNN, "Conway: Trump will not pursue immigration ban based solely on religion," December 22, 2016

[100DaysVideo-135] Breitbart, "Trump Update on Day 1 to 100 Plan and Transition Team Progress," November 21, 2016

[136] CNN, "Congress takes aim at visa program that benefited Trump family businesses," March 9, 2017

[137] Tom Cotton, "Cotton, Perdue Unveil the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act," February 7, 2017

[138] John McCain, "Statement by Senators McCain & Grham on Executive Order on Immigration, January 29, 2017

[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]

[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]

[101]

[102]

Federal policy on immigration enforcement and visa programs, 2017-2020

June 18, 2020: SCOTUS rules DHS did not properly follow APA when seeking to end DACA

February 21, 2020: SCOTUS allows public charge rule to take effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 21, 2018: Trump pledges government shutdown unless border wall funding secured

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

November 9, 2018: Trump issues presidential proclamation on asylum

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

November 19, 2018: Judge blocks presidential proclamation on asylum

November 8, 2018: Ninth Circuit Court rules Trump administration cannot end DACA

October 30, 2018: Trump proposes ending birthright citizenship

Graham says he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship

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

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

June 20, 2018: Trump signs an executive order addressing the separation of children from parents crossing the border illegally

Responses

June 11, 2018: Sessions says individuals who are victims of private crime not eligible for asylum

December 19, 2018: Judge blocks asylum policy

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

Questions raised about separation policy

Trump calls for legislative action

May 1, 2018: Texas and six other states file lawsuit to end DACA

April 24, 2018: Judge rules Trump administration must continue accepting new DACA applications

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

Responses from governors

Support

Oppose

April 2, 2018: Justice Department announces quotas for immigration judges

March 28, 2018: Trump shares photos of construction on U.S.-Mexico border

March 20, 2018: Trump claims sanctuary cities harbor criminals

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

March 6, 2018: DOJ files lawsuit against California's immigration laws

February 27, 2018: Federal judge rules administration did not improperly waive regulations for wall construction

February 26, 2018: SCOTUS denies Trump administration's request to review DACA case

February 15, 2018: Senate rejects four immigration reform proposals

January 31, 2018: Trump administration announces new process for asylum applications

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

Trump on immigration enforcement and visa programs in 2017

President Donald Trump

115th Congress on immigration enforcement and visa programs

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION