In a return to 2016 “Build the wall” form, President-elect Donald Trump is singling out those living in the United States illegally. During his campaign, Trump vowed to carry out the “largest deportation effort in American history,” and the early appointments of immigration hardliners to key administration positions seem to prove the promise wasn’t a bluff.
But Trump’s first presidency — marred by controversial immigration policies like the Muslim ban and family separation at the southern border — may have given those who oppose his immigration proposals time to prepare for what is to come.
In a statement made the day after the election, the ACLU remarked that the organization fought against the first Trump administration through over 400 lawsuits and is prepared to “do it again.” RAICES Texas, a provider of immigration-related legal services, shared a similar statement on election day, warning the Trump administration that the organization is ready to go to court to defend the rights of immigrants.
“We have an understanding of how the first Trump administration worked, with regard specifically to immigration policy. We also have an understanding of what has been stated on the record by campaign officials and [administration appointees],” Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer of RAICES Texas, told the Observer. “But at the same time, we also know that there's so much more to be revealed.”
One sign of what could be coming was handed down by a federal judge last week, Al-Juburi said. U.S. District Court Judge J. Campbell Barker, who was appointed to the Eastern District of Texas court by Trump during his first term, ruled against a Biden administration program that created a streamlined path to naturalization for illegal immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.
"I do have faith in the American public to speak up when something is antithetical to our values.” — Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer of RAICES Texas
tweet this
Texas was one of 16 states that challenged the “Keeping Families Together” program, which Texas Attorney Gen. Ken Paxton called an "unlawful parole scheme."
While the Justice Department can appeal last week’s ruling, Trump has pledged to dismantle all of the immigration policy progress made under the Biden administration. What's more, legal advocacy groups are now having to “contend” with the many Trump judicial appointments who have “a history of ruling against anything that can be deemed pro-immigration,” Al-Juburi said.
Early Appointees to the 2.0 Trump Administration
Another indicator of the immigration policy to come: the appointments of Tom Homan and Stephen Miller to prominent roles in the Trump administration.
Miller, who is expected to be named White House deputy chief of staff for policy, will likely lead the development and execution of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda. Miller served as a senior adviser in Trump’s first administration and was a lead author of the plan that separated children from their parents at the southern border. His appointment to an elevated position in the White House “does not bode well for immigration in America,” Al-Juburi said.
Miller's position has been confirmed by inside sources to CNN, but Trump himself has confirmed the appointment of Homan — who started his career as a border patrol agent and was the Director of ICE during Trump’s first presidency — as Border Czar. In a post to the social media app Truth Social, Trump said Homan would do a “fantastic, and long awaited for, job” of handling the southern and northern borders and immigration enforcement.
“[Illegal immigrants] better start packing now,” Homan said onstage at the Republican National Convention last summer. He expressed support for Trump’s widespread deportation plan, which could see as many as a million immigrants each year "returned to their country of origin." In an interview with 60 Minutes last month, Homan said the program would not look like “a mass sweep of neighborhoods” or “building concentration camps,” but targeted raids on areas where illegal immigrants are known to be.
“Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?” 60 Minutes Reporter Cecilia Vega asked Homan near the end of the interview.
“Of course there is,” Homan replied. “Families can be deported together.”
That answer is unacceptable to Al-Juburi, who points to data that shows a majority of those living illegally in the United States have been in the country for a decade or longer and have built families while “investing into the nation.”
“There is no humane way to execute workplace raids,” Al-Juburi said. “There is no humane way to create a pervasive culture of fear throughout the United States.”
Congratulations, @RealTomHoman you are a wonderful choice. https://t.co/MyG0rh1iZa
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) November 11, 2024
"Humane" is exactly how Homan described Trump's deportation plan on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures”; Al-Juburi believes that as the incoming administration prepares to execute an unprecedented number of deportations, officials may begin using less-severe language to keep Americans from becoming turned off by the policies.
That said, one look at Trump’s campaign rhetoric shows that a majority of Americans may not be as sensitive to anti-immigrant talking points as Al-Juburi thinks.
When Hurricane Helene devastated swaths of North Carolina in late September, Trump incorrectly claimed that FEMA was failing to aid the region because the agency had spent its money on undocumented immigrants. In October, after conservative talking heads and politicians perpetrated an unfounded rumor that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating the towns’ pets, Trump vowed to revoke the Temporary Protected Status that shielded the immigrants from deportation.
Trump won both states: 51% in North Carolina and 55% in Ohio.
“It wasn't just left-leaning individuals that were horrified by family separation when it came to light in 2018,” Al-Juburi said. “I think the [response to these] situations will be different than the engagement with racist rhetoric coming from a campaign that may or may not be elected into office. I think the stakes are very different. And I do have faith in the American public to speak up when something is antithetical to our values.”
