Domestic governance and political activity persist as the world awaits President Trump’s approach to dealing with the Iranian regime. It’s hard to say what options he has or what our intelligence community thinks, or even how our allies feel about the situation. We’re really in a sort of “wilderness of mirrors” when it comes to understanding Iran.
Unlike previous presidents, Trump seems to have navigated challenges in Iran and Venezuela with determination, which should, in theory, bolster his confidence regarding national security decisions. He’s not one to back down easily. Yet, he could also decide against action and, in doing so, risk losing credibility built over the past year. But judging him alongside earlier presidents as simply an appeaser feels premature; we still don’t know how this crisis will unfold, and resolution might be weeks, or even months, away.
At the same time, negotiations surrounding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill present Trump with a unique chance to address immigration divisions and create some consensus, which could mark a significant achievement in his second term. It’s like a moment akin to Nixon’s outreach to China.
On the Democratic side, progressives are advocating for restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), pushing for judicial warrants before detaining undocumented immigrants crossing the border illegally or seeking asylum.
Trump has shown that closing the border is feasible, whereas Democrats appear to want to dismiss ICE’s longstanding practices for deporting undocumented individuals. Republicans, it seems, will not agree to such plans. If the Democrats should choose to defund the DHS and halt its operations, it would become a significant issue come November.
Public sentiment generally leans against the broad approach to immigration enforcement. Many are exasperated by favorable media portrayals of immigrant-related incidents, along with recent crises in Minnesota exacerbating public frustration.
Elected officials need to grasp that most voters desire the swift deportation of violent criminals, including those merely arrested on suspicion of wrongdoing. However, this is easier to say than to execute.
Voters aren’t in favor of expelling hardworking immigrants who have established lives here, although some on the far right advocate for extreme deportation measures that would ultimately backfire. America should continue welcoming diligent, law-abiding individuals while keeping a firm border policy, and focusing deportation efforts on clear cases for removal, especially violent offenders.
By “regularizing” millions of undocumented immigrants, Trump could signify that he is a president devoted to “common sense.”
To effectively tackle immigration, Trump should advocate a protective stance, reminiscent of the success found in the First Step Act during his first term. He can request that DHS develop a comprehensive spending bill that not only funds the department but also retains current deportation processes while introducing additional provisions.
He could shift the narrative by proposing that the new funding should ensure a pathway toward regularization for all “Dreamers,” as well as specific categories of undocumented immigrants who can demonstrate good behavior over time. Such policies could lessen the burdens on DHS while reducing political fallout from unpopular deportations of otherwise contributing members of society.
All Dreamers—and various other groups of undocumented individuals—should be eligible for a “blue card,” which would need renewal every five years as long as they adhere to the law.
It’s crucial that any compromise also clarifies that illegal immigrants will not gain a pathway to citizenship or voting rights, a fundamental stance as necessary as border security itself. Lawbreakers should not acquire citizenship, though residents may find options based on good conduct.
“Normalization” shouldn’t mirror past failures, like Reagan’s 1986 plan. Regularization ought to restrain individuals from supporting immigration applications for others based on their status.
Democrats, by focusing heavily on immigration issues, have inadvertently illuminated the challenges that threaten government operations. Trump could capitalize on this emphasis regarding DHS funding to compel Democrats into negotiations they cannot refuse.
Most Americans express a general reluctance to displace the Dreamers or hard-working undocumented immigrants who have contributed to society for years. Conversely, there’s little sympathy for those who surged across the border during the Biden administration’s lapses in enforcement.
By excluding a significant number of longtime undocumented immigrants from deportation efforts, ICE could concentrate on the real concerns that many Americans have: especially violent offenders and recent arrivals who burden social services.
While navigating these multifaceted crises, Trump should not only focus on funding for DHS but should also use this as a moment to propose reasonable immigration rules for millions presently without legal rights to remain.
By promoting a path toward regularization, President Trump could reinforce his image as a leader representing common sense solutions. He closed the border once. Now he has a genuine opportunity to resolve the challenges facing Dreamers and long-term undocumented residents who have committed themselves to life in the United States.
