fbpx

Trump’s Executive Orders Create a Hostile Environment for Immigrant Communities

One of Trump's orders allows ICE to deport undocumented immigrants who cannot prove at least two years of U.S. residency, sometimes in as little as 24 hours.

Rommel H. Ojeda

Jan 24, 2025

President Donald Trump delivers inaugural address. (Photo courtesy of The White House)

Share Button WhatsApp Share Button X Share Button Facebook Share Button Linkedin Share Button Nextdoor

President Donald Trump has signed 11 executive orders related to immigration, which combined with his inaugural speech, send a clear message about heavy immigration enforcement to come.

Documented has been going through the details of each executive order from the White House, and has talked to several experts to understand what these orders may mean for immigrant communities.

Many of these orders have already impacted the immigrant population by halting legal immigrant pathways like the Refugee Resettlement Program and ending parole through CBP One app. The orders Protecting the American People Against Invasion and Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion, portray immigrants as invaders, and create a fearful, hostile environment that limits the due process of the law, experts told Documented.

Meanwhile, in Documented’s WhatsApp community, members have expressed their fears about being deported. In other channels, including social media, rumors about ICE raids have been circulating almost every day since Trump announced the orders.

Immigration News, Curated
Sign up to get our curation of news, insights on big stories, job announcements, and events happening in immigration.

Expedited removal beyond the border

The order Protecting the American People Against Invasion lays the groundwork to make being an undocumented immigrant in the United States as unbearable as possible, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told Documented. 

A key aspect of this order is the expansion of expedited removal: “It is an authority Congress created in 1996 that authorizes immigration officials to deport, [or] order someone to be deported without ever letting them see an immigration judge,” Reichlin-Melnick explained. Under the Biden administration, and since 1996, expedited removal applied to those apprehended within 14 days of entering the U.S. and within 100 miles from the border

Why it matters: The expansion of expedited removal permits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities to deport an immigrant without legal status, if the immigrant cannot prove to have been physically present in the country for more than two years, anywhere in the country, and not just within the 100 miles border zone.

“The biggest concern with [expedited removal] is that there is virtually no way to challenge a wrong decision made by an ICE officer or a CBP officer to apply expedited removal, you cannot go to court,” Reichlin-Melnick said.

He explained that, at the moment, ICE officials do not target random people and that they go after specific individuals in the community. “ICE enforcement operations really take two forms in general,” he said. “Either targeted arrests…or work site raids where ICE does not know exactly who is undocumented, but knows that there are many undocumented immigrants at a particular workplace.” 

He added that worksite raids are rare due to the significant planning and personnel required to conduct them. Individuals who have been in the country for decades, technically speaking, shouldn’t worry about expedited removal, he said. However, he is concerned ICE officials will disregard the law and ignore evidence provided during the encounter. 

Organizations have encouraged immigrants to carry proof showing that they have been in the country for more than two years, such as postmarked mail sent to your address, copies of a lease, or school records with your address.

Two days after Trump issued the orders, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Trump administration to challenge expedited removal.

Forced collaboration between state and federal agencies

The directive also calls for more state agencies to collaborate with federal agencies through the agreements under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)). These voluntary agreements would allow local officials to screen inmates of local jails or prisons for immigration violations, alert ICE and turn inmates over to the federal agency. 

Whether a local agency shares information with ICE also depends on the sanctuary policies governing the jurisdiction. New York City, for example, expanded sanctuary policies in 2014, which limited when and how the department of corrections could cooperate with ICE. Earlier this week THE CITY reported that NYC city agency employees had been directed to block non-local law enforcement from city facilities.

Why it matters: The collaboration between state and federal agencies in the past has deterred immigrants from reporting crimes, according to a report by the ACLU. A survey from the report also revealed that court cases were interrupted because immigrants who were survivors of crimes feared coming to court.   

Santiago Mueckay, associate director of advocacy for Vera, a nonprofit organization focused on justice reform, and its Advancing Universal Representation initiative, said the federal government could pressure local municipalities to cooperate with the federal government by threatening to cut federal funding, which is mentioned under Sec. 17 of the executive order. “Funding will be particularly important, especially because a lot of the federal funding provides services not only to migrants, but also to the people in those states and in those localities.” 

The Trump administration is also putting pressure on localities by “the DOJ basically targeting individuals in government and in these cities who aren’t cooperating,” Mueckay said. In a 3-page memo sent to the entire DOJ workforce, the acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove calls for U.S. attorneys to prosecute local officials who stand in the way of immigration enforcement.  

“We are still doing a lot of the legal analysis, but I think some of them might not have as many teeth as the others,” Mueckay said. 

Due process of immigrants

Reichlin-Melnick and Mueckay both mentioned that the executive orders have caused fear in immigrant communities, and raised concerns about how expedited removal and increased detentions could make it harder for lawyers to provide legal assistance to undocumented immigrants. 

Why it matters: Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, no person can be deprived of their legal rights without due process of law. This protection extends to undocumented immigrants, who are entitled to notice and a hearing before deportation. However, expedited removal can bypass those protections, allowing deportation in as little as one day.

“One of the strongest solutions, I think, for a lot of the policies and the problems being created here is access to legal representation,” Mueckay said. 

Documented wrote a guide explaining how immigrants should respond during encounters.

Limiting future “invasion”

Following his repeated rhetoric that the U.S. is under an invasion of immigrants, Trump’s executive order Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion limits the entry of immigrants into the U.S.

Under Sec. 3., the directive also restricts those who are likely to be detrimental to the interests of the country. Detrimental, in the directive, is listed as any alien who fails “to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information.” 

Also read: ICE Officers Can Now Raid Churches and Hospitals Under New DHS Directive

Nils Kinuani, Federal Policy Manager at African Communities Together, said “there are people who are fleeing dangerous conditions who are not often carrying all the medical documents. It will be a big challenge for a lot of people.”

Why it matters: The order does not make an exception of any immigrant groups such as Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, victims of human trafficking, those seeking asylum, and other vulnerable groups. 

Kinuani told Documented there is still ambiguity as to how the measure would be implemented. “It just says that if the officer feels [they] do not have enough information of the person coming into the country, then they should not allow that person in the country —including asylum seekers.”

Rommel H. Ojeda

Rommel is a bilingual journalist and filmmaker based in NYC. He is the community correspondent for Documented. His work focuses on immigration, and issues affecting the Latinx communities in New York.

@cestrommel

SEE MORE STORIES

Early Arrival Newsletter

Receive a roundup of immigration and policy news from New York, Washington, and nationwide in your inbox 3x per week.