Burgess’s approach to analyzing the practical implications of an Eisenhower-style deportation policy in a potential second Trump administration is incredibly insightful. Trump’s mass deportation program is a central part of his political messaging during the election campaign, and it seems to resonate with many voters in light of growing apprehension about uncontrolled migration. Burgess’s analysis of Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback—which Trump used as a reference point—shows not only the rhetorical differences and divergent policy goals of Trump and Eisenhower around mass deportation, but also how the changing demographic and political landscape in the United States would complicate anything remotely resembling Operation Wetback. I am wary, however, of the conclusion that mass deportation in 2024 is an elusive goal. Trump has proven time and again that he is willing to take unconventional paths when it comes to implementing campaign promises, particularly when it comes to migration governance. The promise of a wall between the United States and Mexico was also met with intense skepticism in 2016. Eight years later, the wall—despite our criticism of its effectiveness—is being built. Title 42 is another measure that shows how far Trump is willing to go to limit immigration. Both the wall and Title 42 were continued by the Biden administration, indicating that immigration policy in the United States is shifting slightly to the right, at least domestically. I hope Burgess’s article will encourage us to be creative in anticipating the paths Trump might take to achieve his agenda, given how the political landscape in the United States (and the world) has also changed, especially in regard to migration.

In fact, the changing political landscape is exactly what Blitzer comments on in his New Yorker article: What’s Behind Joe Biden’s Harsh New Executive Order on Immigration? Blitzer rightfully notes that Biden did not need to institute the executive order that closed down the border to asylum seekers at the time that he did it. The number of asylum seekers was already low at the time, especially compared to last year. But Blitzer showed that Biden’s decision was largely a political one with two main goals: First, to make it clear to voters that the Republican Party is what is standing in the way of a lasting solution to what he now recognizes as a “migrant crisis.” With this executive order, he is expressing his commitment to a solution, but also lamenting his lack of support from Republicans in the Senate. Second, Biden is taking tough measures that he hopes will positively influence public opinion on his administration’s handling of migration ahead of the November elections. This is also reflected in the PBS Newshour video on the main differences between Trump and Biden’s migration policies. Biden is standing firm on the migration issue, contrary to popular expectations. As Blitzer points out, however, his approach does not seem to be working, as Biden is still poorly ranked in the polls on this specific issue. With Biden out of the race, I wonder what has changed and how much of an issue migration will be for Kamala Harris, whom the Republican Party has dubbed “the border czar.”

Finally, I enjoyed reading about Mexico’s role and influence in U.S. migration policy. What struck me most was the recognition of the changing migration dynamics between the United States and Mexico, and within Mexico itself. As Bárcena noted, “[Mexico has] become a country of origin, destination, and transit.” This important quote underscores the changing nature and direction of migration and the importance of transnational approaches to migration governance. I hope we will discuss this in more detail in class, as the success of U.S. migration management will continue to depend in large part on international cooperation.