Los Angeles Times

Strict border policies will endure

Trump’s actions to limit immigratio­n will be felt in California long after his attacks and his tenure end.

- By Molly O’Toole

WASHINGTON — It was a Monday morning in Washington three weeks from the November presidenti­al election and on the f irst day of Senate hearings for his Supreme Court pick, with more than 210,000 Americans having died from COVID- 19, President Trump tweeted:

“California is going to hell. Vote Trump!”

For nearly four years, California has been among Trump’s favorite punching bags, in large part due to clashes over his central 2016 campaign promise: to restrict immigratio­n.

It’s a pledge he’s made good on in ways that will be felt in the state long after his tenure ends.

Trump’s more than 400 executive actions to restrict immigratio­n have had an outsize impact on the Golden State.

He has targeted the Silicon Valley- based tech industry by squeezing high- skilled foreign labor and has restricted immigratio­n based on family reunificat­ion even as he’s separated thousands of migrant families at the border.

He has attempted to repeal federal protection­s for “Dreamers,” young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children, and has sidesteppe­d the Supreme Court’s rejection of his plans. California has more residents covered by those protection­s, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, than any other state. He has also ended temporary protected status for refugees from El Salvador and other Central American countries, a disproport­ionate number of whom live in the state.

And his administra­tion has discourage­d thousands of other students, refugees, asylum seekers, workers and entreprene­urs — many headed to California — from coming to the United States at all, most recently by using the COVID- 19 pandemic as a justificat­ion for largely clos

ing the nation’s borders.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has pledged to reverse course if he defeats Trump in this year’s election. But the Democrat has taken specific stands on only some immigratio­n issues while pledging to work with Congress to find unspecifie­d solutions to others that, in some cases, have defied legislativ­e compromise for decades.

Even if a Biden administra­tion did find solutions, he would inherit an immigratio­n system that has been battered during Trump’s tenure and that faces a ballooning backlog of cases. And some of the effects of Trump’s policies would be difficult to erase.

The most tangible effect may be the fear and uncertaint­y that Trump’s rhetoric and raids have created among immigrants in California, leaving many in years- long limbo and limiting opportunit­ies.

Under President Obama, people were skeptical of local police involvemen­t in immigratio­n enforcemen­t, but Trump has “greatly magnif ied” the concerns, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigratio­n law professor at UCLA School of Law.

“To really separate out local law enforcemen­t from immigratio­n — that’s a major thing that will survive past Trump,” he said.

California has taken the lead in opposition to many of Trump’s immigratio­n policies, notably in his administra­tion’s attempts to do away with DACA. The University of California was a lead plaintiff in the case that went to the Supreme Court. The system’s president, Janet Napolitano, had crafted the DACA policy as Obama’s Homeland Security secretary.

State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants and the f irst Latino to serve as the state’s top lawyer, says he has sued the Trump administra­tion more than 100 times, often over immigratio­n issues.

“I never expected to have to sue the president,” Becerra said. “We don’t sue Donald Trump because it’s easy or fun.... If he wouldn’t break the law, we wouldn’t take him to court.”

Biden has pledged to work with Congress for a permanent legislativ­e replacemen­t for DACA, as well as a path to citizenshi­p for the rest of the estimated 10.5 million immigrants in the U. S. illegally. He also says he would change American foreign policy toward Mexico and Central America, with more emphasis on diplomacy and less on enforcemen­t. And Biden says he would end the use of forprofit migrant detention centers, which have proliferat­ed under Trump.

Biden has not endorsed the calls from some progressiv­es to dissolve the Homeland Security Department and Immigratio­n and Customs Enforcemen­t in particular, saying instead that he’d increase training and oversight.

The Democratic candidate says he would tackle the backlog of immigratio­n cases by increasing the number of immigratio­n judges, court staff and interprete­rs. But with promises to end policies such as “Remain in Mexico,” he’d have to confront the claims of tens of thousands of asylum seekers stuck south of the border under Trump, as well as those who have already been waiting years to have their claims heard.

For state officials, the biggest impact of a change of administra­tions might be no longer being the constant foil for Trump’s political attacks.

Trump has been railing against California’s cities and their immigratio­n policies since his f irst presidenti­al campaign. Last year, he threatened to dump detained migrants into “sanctuary cities and states,” despite his own advisors telling him that would be illegal.

“California certainly is always saying, ‘ Oh, we want more people,’ ” Trump said. “And they want more people in their sanctuary cities. Well, we’ll give them more people.... Let’s see if they’re so happy.”

This month, Chad Wolf, Trump’s acting Homeland Security secretary, and Tony H. Pham, interim director of ICE, held an unusual news conference in Washington about immigratio­n enforcemen­t actions in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco — chosen, the officials said, because they are socalled sanctuary cities.

“Sanctuary” jurisdicti­ons in California — like others across the country — have vowed to protect people who are in the country illegally. The state provides some benefits for people who lack legal status, including healthcare and driver’s licenses. And a law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown limited cooperatio­n between local law enforcemen­t agencies and federal immigratio­n agents.

ICE’s latest enforcemen­t push, dubbed “Operation Rise,” resulted in the arrest of 128 immigrants, Wolf and Pham said. It’s a relatively small number for an agency that averaged nearly 400 arrests a day last year.

Wolf said the timing of the news conference had no tie to the election.

“Nearly four years ago this administra­tion put forth an ‘ America first’ strategy with a clear mandate to secure our borders,” he said. “Unfortunat­ely, certain local political leaders, including many in California, continue to put politics over public safety.”

He told California residents to “continue to expect a more visible ICE presence.”

Tom Wong, an associate professor of political science at UC San Diego who was an immigratio­n advisor to the Obama White House, called such statements an example of the administra­tion’s political “theater” on immigratio­n.

Wong’s research using federal data showed less crime in so- called sanctuary communitie­s relative to comparable areas.

“The facts do not support the administra­tion theater when it comes to this image of sanctuary localities as being lawless and rampant,” Wong said.

Beyond the rhetorical broadsides, the administra­tion has taken several steps that have been acutely felt by immigrant communitie­s.

One of Trump’s early executive orders made every immigrant in the country illegally a priority for arrest, in contrast with Obama’s focus on arresting those with criminal records.

More recently, invoking the pandemic, Trump officials have sought to deny hearings before a judge to speed up the removal of immigrants who cannot prove they have been in the country continuous­ly for two years.

Overall, however, immigratio­n arrests and removals by ICE have fallen under Trump — though the proportion of those deported without criminal records has more than doubled, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

As COVID- 19 led to widespread job loss and deaths, disproport­ionately borne by Latinos and Black Americans and hitting the agricultur­e, food- processing and healthcare sectors in California particular­ly hard, the administra­tion insisted that Congress make millions of immigrants without legal status — as well as many of the 1.2 million Americans who filed taxes jointly with a noncitizen spouse — ineligible for federal stimulus checks.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D- San Jose) said Trump ignores that immigrant workers in California’s economy play a key role nationally.

“California has the most productive farming in the U. S., and more than half of the farmworker­s are undocument­ed,” Lofgren said. “If they weren’t there, our agricultur­e sector would collapse.”

The stimulus exclusion tracks with other “wealth test” policies the administra­tion has put into place to keep low- income immigrants out of the country or to deny them citizenshi­p. Under Trump, the government has adopted what’s known as a “public charge” rule, which would deny permanent legal status to those who might use, or whose U. S. citizen children might use, public benefits.

While these policies have been tied up in litigation, they have already had a chilling effect, discouragi­ng thousands from using available benefits in California and other states.

The Trump administra­tion has also sought to restrict citizenshi­p in other ways, such as raising fees and slowing the processing of hundreds of thousands of potential 2020 voters waiting to be naturalize­d — most of them in California, according to a report by Boundless Immigratio­n.

All of those policies have taken aim at California constituen­cies, Lofgren said.

“If you don’t love him, he tries to destroy you,” she said. “But it’s impossible to destroy the biggest state without harming the rest of the country tremendous­ly.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States