How will a Trump or Harris presidency affect US migration policy?
Writing for RTÉ Brainstorm, Mirna Vohnsen and Eoin Hayes examine how past immigration policies which prioritise enforcement over human rights have left the US southern border in a perpetual state of crisis.
As the US gears up for the presidential election, immigration at the southern border remains a central issue, with the legacy of Title 42 casting a long shadow. Initially invoked by Donald Trump's administration to block asylum seekers from entering the US during the pandemic, this public health order bypassed established immigration laws and refugee protections, leading to significant humanitarian consequences. Latin American migrants, particularly Haitians, suffered under this policy, with thousands facing violent attacks and forced expulsion to Mexico.
While the current administration ended the policy in May 2023, the upcoming election could present an opportunity for change. The hope lies in whether a future administration will address the racial disparities, human rights abuses and border management challenges exacerbated by Title 42 and offer a more equitable approach to immigration at the US southern border.
'They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats’: this was Trump's baseless and inflammatory statement about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio uttered during the presidential debate with Kamala Harris. Such rhetoric both reinforces racist stereotypes and fuels discrimination and hostility across the US. Such a dangerous narrative could embolden other political figures to justify harsher immigration policies, stoking fear among Americans. Trump’s remarks may pave the way for policies similar to Title 42, leading to increased deportations or reduced asylum opportunities for Latin American and Caribbean migrants.
Immigration policies in the past
Political rhetoric like this has a powerful impact on public perception, shaping how voters understand and react to immigration issues. Historically, such inflammatory claims set the stage for restrictive immigration measures aimed at limiting asylum. Previous administrations repeatedly framed immigration as a national security threat, particularly when addressing migrant groups from Latin America and the Caribbean. For instance, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996 introduced harsher penalties for undocumented migrants and limited the ability of immigrants to seek asylum, a law that still affects policies today.
The Bush and Obama administrations continued this pattern, introducing policies like Operation Streamline, which led to mass detentions and expedited deportations at the southern border, with little regard for individual asylum claims. These measures created a foundation for more recent policies, such as Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy, which included family separations and fuelled an atmosphere of fear and distrust.
Title 42 in the Biden era
When Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he defended the continuation of Title 42, citing the ongoing pandemic as justification. Title 42 led to the detention and expulsion of approximately 400,000 people before Trump left office, but its use expanded significantly under Biden’s presidency. Between January 2021 and May 2023, over two million people were expelled under Title 42. Despite Biden’s initial promises of a more humane immigration policy, the reliance on Title 42 raised concerns about the administration’s handling of asylum seekers and its commitment to reforming immigration practices.
Vice President Harris has advocated for addressing the ‘root causes’ of migration in Central America and the Caribbean, such as poverty, corruption and violence, rather than focusing solely on managing asylum seekers at the US southern border. However, her stance has faced criticism, as some argue it does little to alleviate the immediate crisis faced by those seeking refuge at the southern border.
The upcoming US presidential election could present a crucial opportunity to reshape immigration policy
The current situation
The Biden administration's immediate approach has focused on managing the surge at the border through a mix of incentives and strict deterrents. To address the influx of migrants waiting to enter the US at the southern border, it has adopted a 'carrot and stick’ approach. This strategy promotes legal pathways for migrants to enter the country, while imposing strict penalties on those who cross the border illegally.
As part of this approach, new processing centres have been established in Latin America to assist migrants in applying for legal entry to the US. However, the lengthy process has left many migrants stranded and in danger on the other side of the border.
The Biden administration also enacted an executive order allowing US authorities to swiftly deport migrants who enter illegally without processing their asylum requests. This approach mirrors that of the Trump administration, which previously restricted immigration and travel from predominantly Muslim countries and denied asylum to migrants apprehended while crossing the border illegally, policies that sparked accusations of racism.
Past and present immigration policies have contributed to a framework that prioritizes enforcement over human rights, leaving the US southern border in a perpetual state of crisis. The upcoming US presidential election could present a crucial opportunity to reshape immigration policy. As candidates’ rhetoric and policy proposals unfold, the hope for reform lies in a future administration that can shift from reactionary measures to a more balanced approach—one that addresses both the immediate needs of asylum seekers and the broader systemic issues driving migration. Yet, with rising political tensions and a polarised electorate, the feasibility of meaningful reform remains uncertain.
Dr Mirna Vohnsen is Assistant Lecturer in Spanish at TU Dublin. Eoin Hayes is a graduate in International Business and Languages from TU Dublin.