Migration Policies: Trump Against the Public Opinion

Trump's second administration and its restrictive policy on migration, despite the great stir generated in global public opinion, are part of an international context that is increasingly directed towards containment rather than integration.
Despite that, the decisions of the Republican president are also meeting a growing contrast within national borders, not only from citizens, but also from members of the opposition party.

Travel ban

On Monday the 9th of June the restrictions to the entrance into US territory entered into force, decided by the Trump administration and against citizens of 19 countries.
These restrictions are aimed at limiting or completely prohibiting the entrance of citizens of certain states into the American territory, suspending their visas.

Trump's decision is explained in a presidential proclamation, a tool that is generally used in response to national emergency situation. In this case, the emergency it refers to is the attack an Egyptian citizen put into place against a group of protesters in Colorado, demanding the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. The man injured a dozen people, but surprisingly, Egypt is not among the countries affected.

Twelve countries have been completely banned: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Seven countries only received restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

The decisions behind the choice of countries were more than one: for countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya it was for a lack of a central authority that is strong enough to ensure proper border controls and passport issuance.

For countries like Haiti, Sierra Leone and Myanmar it was because of the high number of immigrants that outnumber the limits imposed by their permits, and eventually ending up staying illegally in the American territory.
Finally, for Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and Cuba worries about terroristic activities or support to such activities were raised.

The difference from the restrictions imposed by Trump during his first term are obvious: in 2017, the restrictions mainly concerned Muslim-majority states, but this does not seem to have been the discriminating factor for these last decisions.
For example, Haitians, who are mainly Christians, were probably targeted only for propaganda: The American president was in fact among those who had helped spread the conspiracy theory that Haitians in Ohio ate the pets of American citizens.
The most affected country will be Venezuela, whose citizens have already been targeted by Trump's policies during the past months, with massive deportations to foreign prisons, such as the maximum security prison in El Salvador.

It is important, however, to clarify that the restrictions will not affect visas already issued and in force, but only citizens who intend to travel to the United States in the future. But it is not the same for the suspension of visas at Harvard.

Suspension of visas for international students

Also in early June, Trump suspended the issuance of visas for international students at Harvard University, in addition to temporarily blocking all academic exchange programs, and, in this case, also considering the possibility of revoking currently valid visas.

This maneuver will likely hit the prestigious American University hard, as foreign students make up 27 percent of its student body. This might have serious repercussions in research and development, a historically essential sector to the American economy.

Again, the measure is officially linked to safeguarding national security: the White House accuses Harvard of maintaining troubling ties with international associations and of cultivating radicalisms that are considered dangerous.
Despite the official statements, part of the public opinion considers Trump's decision a mere political tool to bend Harvard to the invasive controls of his administration. But the University has already threatened legal intervention and has ensured that it wants to continue to protect its international students.

ICE and protests

What most shocked the American public were the deportation raids carried out by ICE, the federal agency responsible for border control and immigration, which increased in intensity to keep pace with the quotas imposed by the Trump administration.

The indiscriminate raids by ICE sparked initial protests in Los Angeles, Paramount, and Compton, but despite some acts of vandalism, the Los Angeles Police Department managed to keep the situation under control and ensured that the protests remained peaceful and limited.

Despite everything, Trump decided to send the National Guard, a military corps formed exclusively of reservists, and later a Navy group, describing the protests as a serious national emergency. This submission is against the wishes of California Governor Newson and Los Angeles' mayor, who are both Democrats.
For Newson, Trump's decision is nothing more than an act of provocation, an unnecessary move that risks worsening the situation, and for this reason he has stated that he intends to sue the American president for abuse of power.

While a curfew has been imposed in Los Angeles and the police have begun arresting large numbers of protesters, demonstrations are also spreading to other cities, such as New York, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Atlanta, putting the Trump administration in a difficult position and showing that controlling the complex federal machinery is not enough to tackle the migration issue with such repressive measures.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025