Initially, what drew my attention was the Preston’s article about the amount of actionable planning that Trump was doing toward deportation. He spent his entire campaign pushing this agenda, but now that he has the power to appoint people in power, we see that there is this deep desire to fulfill the threats he made. But the how still remains a mystery to most.

Once in office, he followed through with harsh policies like mass deportations, raids on homes and workplaces, and strict border enforcement. For example, his administration used an old law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to send agents into communities, separating families and causing disruptions in schools and businesses. Which opens the question of what he might

The leaders he appointed, like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, pushed these policies aggressively. Trump also used strong language, calling migrants “predators” and blaming them for crime, unemployment, and even inflation. While this kind of talk energized some of his supporters, it may have worsened stereotypes and divisions.

At first, these policies seemed to have an effect—border crossings dropped during Trump’s first six months in office. But as time went on, migrants adapted. By December 2023, U.S. authorities recorded 250,000 unlawful crossings in one month, a record number. This shows how migration patterns take time to adjust, and the impact of policies isn’t always immediate. Migrants often weigh risks and conditions at home before deciding to leave, so the effects of enforcement measures might not fully show up for years. How do we feel about the delay in migration patterns? Should we give policies more time to work before judging their success or failure? This delay is quite contrasting to the digital age we live in so how does this contribute to issues of information getting to people? What role should public opinion play in shaping immigration policies, especially when the issue is so polarizing?

On top of that, these policies caused problems for communities. Long delays in court left migrants stuck in limbo, while residents grew frustrated with what they saw as a strain on local resources. Policies focused mainly on punishment may not address the root causes of migration, like violence or lack of opportunities in migrants’ home countries. As well as what kind of support are these communities getting for this process?

What makes the article so effective is how it explores the gray area between the extremes of immigration policy. It highlights the urgency of securing borders by Trump’s enforcement-focused measures. These policies, while aimed at deterring unlawful migration, often created new problems, such as humanitarian crises, family separations, and overburdened resources. The article makes it clear that while enforcement may be necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to address the complexities of migration.

On the other hand, the article also delves into Harris’s preventative strategies, which aim to address the root causes of migration by creating stability and opportunity in migrants’ home countries. Programs under her leadership, such as job creation and workforce training in Central America, demonstrate that investment in long-term solutions can reduce migration. However, these efforts fall short when it comes to addressing the immediate chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, where record numbers of people are arriving, often fleeing violence or economic collapse.

By presenting both perspectives, the article effectively illustrates that neither approach alone is enough to solve the problem. Enforcement without compassion can exacerbate suffering and strain systems, while long-term solutions can feel disconnected from the urgent realities at the border. The real challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, one that considers both the human and systemic aspects of migration.
How can policymakers better balance enforcement and humanitarian concerns to create effective immigration policies?