Attacks on Immigrants Don’t Fix Immigration, Make Way for Autocracy Instead

As a nation, we’ve lost focus on the immigration problem. Rather than fixing the many cracks in the immigration system, as Republicans and Democrats tried to do for years, our current government is instead attacking immigrants. Masked officers, often in unmarked uniforms, are seizing them in very public displays designed to instill fear, demonstrating no regard for individual rights and personal dignity. Such attacks have begun to normalize dehumanizing images more commonly associated with a police state.

These made-for-media raids are evidence that our government, acting through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service (ICE), is not serious about fixing an immigration system built, however imperfectly, on mutual need and, more recently, a respect for human rights. In an example of performance politics ordered by a president who once successfully played a businessman on reality television, ICE is taking, caging, and deporting immigrants regardless of their legal status and irrespective of legal protocols. Most had been authorized to be in the country at least temporarily. And, as David J. Bier reported for the Cato Institute, most are not the “worst of the worst” that Trump said he would target. Cato is one of the conservative think tanks established in the 1970s after the release of the Lewis Powell memo, considered the blueprint for the culture war that was to come.

As has been well-reported in the media, most undocumented immigrants and those who are here on temporary status tend to be more law-abiding than the rest of the population. Under pressure from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to increase the number of deportations, ICE officials are ignoring the profile of drug traffickers, rapists, and murderers that Trump alleged are “invading” the country and are instead taking hardworking, taxpaying family members, friends, and neighbors – and in some cases, US citizens.

Ilya Somin, also of the Cato Institute, worries that the immigration issue is being used by the White House to establish authoritarian rule. In May, he made the case that the Trump regime “has exhibited a dangerous pattern of invoking spurious emergencies to undermine the Constitution, threatening liberty and circumventing Congress. This is most evident in the fields of immigration and trade policy.”

In an executive order signed on Inauguration Day, Trump used the term “invasion” to characterize the flow of illegal immigrants and drug smuggling at the southern border. Trump’s use of the term was likely intentional. As Somin explained, the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) also uses the term “invasion”, giving Trump a legal pretext to invoke the AEA as justification for circumventing laws established to protect the rights of immigrants and US citizens.

Somin is particularly concerned that Trump is setting the stage for a perpetual state of emergency and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which protects US citizens and others subject to US law from unlawful detentions. The Constitution includes a suspension clause, Section 9 of Article I, which states that the writ of habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Again, Trump’s use of the term “invasion” in his executive order was likely not an accident. Miller has confirmed the administration is actively looking at suspending the writ to expand Trump’s powers.

And yet: A July headline on The New York Times website screamed that illegal crossings at the southern border – the issue that has fueled the immigration debate for years – had plunged to their lowest level in decades. The Times’ report is based on information supplied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which, according to an earlier PBS News analysis of DHS’s calculations, is open to question. That analysis suggests that border crossings have dropped closer to 60% and not the 90% claimed by DHS. That is still a significant achievement, but it is coming at the cost of Trump’s efforts to expand his power through intimidation rather than the law.

To our AI-assisted knowledge, no poll has yet asked whether Americans think the trade-off is worth it. Nevertheless, polling data so far suggests that Americans don’t agree with Trump’s policies or tactics.

According to a June Gallup poll, the number of Americans wanting to see immigration reduced has dropped precipitously over the last year, from 55% to 30%. Nearly 80% of Americans – and 64% of Republicans – say immigration benefits the country, and most Americans, including most Republicans, would like to see a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the US illegally.

Looking at July polling by Fox News, 54% disapprove of Trump’s performance to date. On specific issues, Trump has less support on immigration (48% approve to 51% disapprove), on the economy (44% – 55%), and on inflation and tariffs (36% – 62% on both).

Nate Silver’s August 12 polling update, based on a review of hundreds of polls from across the spectrum of polling organizations, shows Trump’s approval rating since his inauguration peaking in early March at 53.4% and then falling to 44.0%. His disapproval rating has risen steadily from 39.3% to 52.3%. On immigration, Trump’s net approval rating has fallen from a peak of +11.1% in early March to -3.2%.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll completed in mid-August shows 43% of Americans approve of his immigration stance and, perhaps more significantly, just 32% of Hispanics approve of the job he’s doing. That is the lowest approval rating he’s received from this demographic this year – a positive sign for pro-democracy advocates, given that support from this voting block was critical to Trump’s election.

Few deny that prior to Trump’s second inauguration, our immigration system had significant problems. Illegal crossings at the southern border peaked under President Biden at a quarter of a million people, an unmanageable volume that desperately demanded a solution. In early 2024, one of the most conservative immigration proposals to come along in years, spearheaded by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), had enough bipartisan support to become law. The bill was heavy with clauses that would limit immigration rather than increase resources to manage the huge numbers. Yet, it was voted down, not by Democrats but by Republicans at the command of their candidate, Donald Trump, who needed an unresolved immigration issue to fuel his third presidential campaign.

Now, as Trump delivers on his promise of massive deportations, efforts to improve the system have mostly ground to a halt. The compliant Republican majority in Congress has not sought to resurrect the Lankford bill nor has it proposed an even more draconian bill. Their abdication of their congressional responsibility is a culmination of the radical right’s long-sought expansion of executive power under the theory of the unitary executive, which today is a smart-sounding way of saying autocrat.

Even though border crossings are down dramatically, the immigration system has not been fixed. It has been overridden by an elected autocrat and a complicit Republican Party.

Trump’s assault on immigrants sabotages the rule of law and the human rights principles that have been the foundation of US immigration policy for much of the last seventy years. Even as majorities of Americans turn against Trump’s policies, our ability to democratically change the direction of the country is growing more limited. As we’ve written previously, the regime’s attacks on the right to vote and the guarantee of free and fair elections are a threat to the validity of the 2026 midterm elections – and our opportunity to right the ship through peaceful means.