In 2017, the Trump Administration signed an executive order prompting construction for the United States and Mexico border. Beginning from Trump’s presidency in 2016, President Trump has emphasized an enthusiasm in solidifying a United States and Mexico divide, supplementing major immigration policies to minimize illegal immigration across U.S. borders. As President Trump returns to the office, the United States prepares for a continued persistence for drastic changes in immigration policies.
Trump’s previously foundational “Build the Wall” campaign has subsided, however, his targets set for immigration policy persist. With Trump’s second presidential term, Trump has redirected his immigration policy objectives into a broader, abstract end goal, ultimately threatening legacies for present and future immigrant generations in the United States.
Within a month since President Trump’s inauguration, Trump has already issued several ambitious executive orders targeting United States immigration, especially upon issues encompassing border security and citizenship.
Trump’s late-January executive order issue, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, heightens immigration enforcement policies in addressing illegal immigration entry and presence in the United States, prompting a prospective increase in Homeland Security removal efforts.
U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have become increasingly prevalent nation-wide, following Trump’s policy implementations. Previous “Sanctuary” jurisdictions— policies limiting local/state government information sharing with federal immigration law officers— are threatened with denied access to federal funds if noncompliant with federal enforcement operations. However, discussions for constitutionality for ICE raid strategies and unwarranted entry has surfaced among law enforcement tensions.
The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search of private spaces, establishing an expectation for privacy. For ICE’s entrance into a private space, ICE must bear necessary legal documentation— a judicial warrant signed by a federal judge.
Constitutionality and transparency has especially become an emerging concern in consideration for ICE’s target demographics: immigrants, often English-second-language and lacking in sufficient media literacy and understanding. In spite of ICE’s obscure developments, social media’s cultural rampancy has served as a combative effort, in expanding accessibility to critical information distribution. From the Immigrant Defenders Law Center running a hotline for recently detained immigrants to Centro CSO verifying ICE sightings and handing out “Know Your Rights” pamphlets and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights’ hotline for suspected ICE sighting reports, nonprofit communication networks across Los Angeles have risen to prominence, unified by a common goal: information and resource distribution. However, this trend is not exclusive to California communities. Across social media communities, nationwide, ICE sightings and “know your rights” content has garnered major traction among digital discussions, providing users with necessary, precautious radars and reinforced legal knowledge, while maximizing resource accessibility.
Additionally, schools have become more consistently targeted by raids as well. Teens across social media’s immigration discussions have highlighted ICE raids, some undercover, at their middle and high schools. With the target demographic encompassing children, often unfamiliar with legal conditions, understanding constitutional rights and government processes becomes crucial in combating law enforcement infringement.
Trump’s hostile immigration policies extend beyond citizenship for current United States’ immigrant residents, but additionally threatens future United States citizenship jurisdictions as well. Trump’s executive order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship continues with mandates in limiting birthright citizenship. Previously granting American citizenship to any person born on United States soil, birthright citizenship eligibility now must have one parent who is a Legal Permanent Resident or a United States citizen for eligibility. Tightened requirements in obtaining citizenship reinforces the illusory American Dream through exclusivity, while disregarding the problem at its root: a systemically inaccessible citizenship process.
The current process to obtain United States legal temporary or permanent residence prioritizes foreign entry pathways through employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Supplementing situational exclusivity, these pathways are highly regulated through numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. Compounded exclusivity creates an everlasting struggle for obtaining American citizenship.
For family-based immigration, several requirements must be met before consideration within numerical limitations, including petitioning family members’ income level above poverty line and support commitment.
Employment-based immigration usually encompasses only the most qualifying professions requiring high education levels and professional experience. Even among selective candidacy, the numerical limit prevails, barring immigration opportunities to majority applicants.
Foreign immigration applicants without fortunate family and occupational circumstances are placed at a significant disadvantage, confining the American Dream to a lottery-winning concept.
The concept of United States birthright citizenship may not be in complete jeopardy. The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment reinforces a concept of birthright citizenship, stating that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Considerations for the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders remain in question, ultimately providing an argument for courts to strike down executive orders with constitutional infringement reasoning. While Trump’s immigration enforcement measures aren’t officially law yet– enduring discourse, lawsuits, and judge jurisdiction– the future for United States immigration policy and citizenship remains uncertain.
