Immigration Policy Under Trump’s Second Term

Thirteen months into President Trump’s second term, it’s becoming clear there won’t be any mass deportations or significant immigration reform. If the Democrats regain power, chances are they’ll swiftly alter the current approach once more.

While Trump has managed to reduce the flow of immigration and halted certain outdated visa programs, the impact seems quite limited compared to what transpired before his administration and what might occur afterward.

Eventually, red states will have to implement deterrents. The challenge lies in timing, though.

This situation brings us to a partial, permanent solution: red states can leverage their supermajorities to hinder illegal immigrants from settling there. Although states lack the authority to deport every illegal resident outright, they can create an environment that’s quite challenging for them to navigate. This could include denying access to jobs and benefits, enforcing criminal penalties, and establishing a lasting deterrent for the duration of a presidential term.

In Florida, Ron DeSantis seems to grasp this idea, though not many other Republican governors appear to get it.

Take Idaho, for example. On the surface, it seems well-positioned for tight immigration control, with Republicans holding majorities in both the House and Senate. Yet, when it came time to enact meaningful reforms, the Republican establishment faltered.

The House advanced various bills, but the Senate has been quietly blocking them. Governor Brad Little has kept quiet about the issue, seemingly hoping it will fade away before his re-election campaign heats up. There’s President Trump’s early support to keep the donor base satisfied.

One stalled bill in Idaho highlights the issue of fraud.

H704, which proposes mandatory E-Verify, would apply to both public and private employers and grant significant enforcement powers to state attorneys general. It passed the House but is stuck in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Another effort, H700, would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant without E-Verify. This bill also failed in the Senate, with a significant number of House Republicans voting against it.

Similarly, H659 aims to ensure that all counties and cities cooperate with ICE through a 287(g) agreement. You might think this would be straightforward in a state with few elected Democrats. Yet, the measure passed the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

H660, which would require police to check immigration status after a lawful arrest, also just barely passed and is now blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Another proposal, H764, seeks to enforce penalties for anyone who knowingly or recklessly assists an illegal immigrant. This would, essentially, create the kind of deterrent red states need. However, it hasn’t moved out of committee either.

Then there’s S1318, aimed at auditing refugee resettlement contractors in Idaho. The bill requires them to report on various aspects, including how many illegal immigrants they assist. Yet, it also remains stuck in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H592 proposes tracking the hospital services used by illegal immigrants, a measure already enacted in Florida, which has limited healthcare access for them. But like others, this bill hasn’t progressed.

How does all this happen in such a conservative state? Many Republican officials seem to adopt fairly progressive positions on immigration, as odd as that might sound.

Despite some unease among the grassroots, securing Trump’s support has muted any primary threats. It appears that many lawmakers simply prefer to let these bills die quietly rather than face backlash from their bases or corporate supporters who still favor cheaper labor.

This notion could be viewed as a political Murphy’s Law; while DeSantis is term-limited in Florida, Little might secure a third term in Idaho.

Interestingly, Florida’s efforts still don’t feel complete. Lawmakers are unable to remove an exception for businesses with 25 employees regarding E-Verify. Similar efforts have failed in other solidly red states, like West Virginia and South Dakota.

There are some positive signs, though. Tennessee might pass impactful legislation, despite watering down a bill that would have charged tuition to undocumented immigrants. Arizona is on the cusp of passing a measure banning illegal immigrants from accessing banking services, but it’s likely to face a veto from the state’s Democratic governor.

These situations provoke further questions about why similar laws aren’t already in place across various Republican-controlled states.

Commercial trucking has faced similar inaction despite incidents involving illegal drivers. Only Oklahoma has introduced a law requiring proof of citizenship for out-of-state commercial license returns, while Florida appears mired in similar issues.

At some point, red states will inevitably need to adopt these deterrents, but the timing will be crucial. Will Republicans take assertive steps now during a period of decreased immigration, or will they hold off, possibly waiting until a new wave of incoming immigrants arrives under a future administration?

This choice will ultimately reveal how serious Republicans are about their claims regarding immigration.