Why the US anti-immigrant frenzy may be unsustainable

Landing at San Diego International Airport you would expect to see heightened immigration measures, given Washington’s current campaign against illegal arrivals: after all, the city is just over 30 km from the Mexican border, the locus of much of the Trump administration’s concerns about uncontrolled access to the US.

But none of this materialized at the airport, which was relaxed and welcoming. The staff, including immigration officials, were drawn mostly from America’s minorities, especially Hispanics and Asians, the same groups vilified by far-right opponents of immigration. The lines moved quickly and the passport screening process took about a minute per passenger, many of whom had flown from Mexican airports nearby.

Countries are of course entitled to protect their borders. Immigration policies are usually discretionary, according to economic and security prerogatives. The US should be no exception, especially since it has suffered more than its share of illegal immigration: it is estimated that there are more than 11 million people living there without legal status, about 3 percent of the population. Some have committed heinous crimes in the US or were escaping the consequences of crimes they had committed in their home countries.

However, the Trump administration has been criticized for how it is enforcing the law and the rhetoric employed to justify it. For example, it has targeted those holding political views at variance with the administration’s, on the war in Gaza for example and the Palestinian issue in general. Many lawful residents have had their status revoked for expressing their views on these matters. Permanent residents, green card holders, were told that they could no longer stay in the US. Valid visas were revoked for students, faculty and researchers, and they were ordered to be deported for expressing their views.

There has also been enforcement on ethnically selective grounds, targeting Hispanics, for example. The tactics have been frighteningly reminiscent of those employed by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes that have been roundly panned by the US as violations of the right to free expression and due process.

At other times, there is little consideration for the disproportionate pain and suffering inflicted on the deportees, such as shipping them to commercially run detention centers abroad, where there is little to no oversight of how they are treated. Detainees are kept in places far from where they and families lived. Gratuitous violence is also reported in US detention centers. Although due process protections are an important part of the American judicial system, in the case of deportation in some immigration cases it appears to be abbreviated if not compromised, including injunctions by US judges being ignored.

The president and other senior officials have praised this approach. The far right in Congress and outside government have weaponized it against political opponents. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene exploded against a British journalist who asked a difficult question about last week’s leak of sensitive national security information on a Signal group chat. “I don't give (expletive) about your opinion or your reporting. Why don’t you go back to your country where you have a major migrant problem?” Greene said.

The xenophobic rhetoric against immigrants, legal or not, has reached a pitch unprecedented in decades. The atmosphere is likened to McCarthyism in the fifties. The two campaigns are similar in that they included the targeting of those with views opposed to the official narrative, but there is a difference. In the fifties, the campaign was clearly political, against communism and the Soviet Union, although it was tinged with prejudice at times. There was a clear peer adversary, but now it seems to be a free for all. The campaign is directed at those with contrarian political views and those who have broken the law. There is no sound justification for the former category, because Gaza or Palestine are not enemies of the US. In the latter, the government is praised for rounding up foreign gang members, but criticized for hounding ordinary folk who overstayed their visas or are doing tough, essential jobs that ordinary Americans will not do, including work on farms and in food processing.

While anti-immigrant campaigns in the past were reserved for incomers from Third World countries, this time others have been detained and deported in unclear circumstances. Because the process appears arbitrary, with people held incommunicado for long periods and summarily expelled, several US allies have issued travel warnings for their citizens planning to visit the US. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and the UK are some of the European countries warning of the risks of traveling to the US, including detention and deportation.

California is having none of these anti-immigrant sentiments. The different approach may be due to its large immigrant and foreign-born population. The 2020 census showed that minorities comprised more than 65 percent of its population: Hispanics and Asians accounted for 84 percent of that total. California is also one of the largest farm states and as such the largest employer of immigrants, and has a long history of accepting them, legal or not. For taking an approach different than Washington’s, its officials, especially the Democratic governor Gavin Newsome, have been singled out for criticism by Republicans.

Other states, especially those run by Democrats or with sizable immigrant or foreign-born populations, are also voicing objections to the federal overreach and accompanying xenophobia. The census showed that 50 percent of Texas and 49 percent of New Mexico’s population are minorities, especially Hispanics. The District of Columbia and states such as Maryland also have sizable minority populations. Overall, more than 42 percent of the US population were minorities according to the 2020 census. Hispanics and Asians accounted for 60 percent of the minority population.

Targeting students and faculty with opposing views has also been criticized by other states, especially those with large student populations. Massachusetts Rep. Stephen Lynch recently said: "Snatching an international student off our streets who is lawfully in our country and attending one of our universities and then bundling her off to an ICE detention center 1,700 miles away without a hearing is a sickening reminder of the Gestapo-like conduct from another age.” He added that his district had about 80,000 foreign students “precisely because we have a reputation as a center of learning and intellectual, religious, and cultural tolerance. Let’s keep it that way.”

These figures and America’s long history of welcoming immigrants and foreign visitors will make it difficult for the Trump administration to carry out its anti-immigrant policies. And so will the lengthy US tradition of free expression, unless Washington recalibrates its policy to focus on those illegal residents who have committed serious crimes and do not have close families in the US or other strong links to the country. Punishing peaceful speech detracts from the administration’s other legitimate goals. And so does violating due process protections, including the 12th century habeas corpus, which predates Magna Carta and has been a hallmark of democracies for centuries.

Many Americans, perhaps the majority, appear to be turned off by the far-right rhetoric cheering these anti-immigrant excesses, which only add fuel to growing anti-American sentiments around the world, including US allies and friends.

• Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation. The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the GCC. X: @abuhamad1