In the cover of night, U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents conduct raids, sweeping through communities to detain undocumented individuals. This stark reality has been intensified with President Donald Trump Administration’s return to power on Jan. 20, news headlines of shocking executive orders and intense debate over many controversial issues have become the norm nationwide. Most notably, Trump’s objective to carry out mass deportation of undocumented immigrants has made many foreigners uncertain about their status in the United States. Stories about the increased presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in major metropolitan areas and the federal redefinition of birthright citizenship have sent fear throughout immigrant communities, even those who came legally.
With increased ICE sightings in San Jose and Santa Clara County, protests over the loss of a sense of safety due to the increased presence of immigration officials have sparked the Santa Clara County government to reach out to schools to confirm the policies for ICE involvement. Within FUHSD, Fremont and Homestead High School organized a protest against Trump’s immigration policies on Feb. 5, hoping to spread awareness on this national issue.
In light of a recent surge in fear and concern from local communities regarding mass deportations, FUHSD has reviewed its policies and reaffirmed its stance to maintain a safe learning environment for all students during the Jan. 14 Board Meeting in Resolution No. 2425-15. FUHSD’s policy for cases when ICE officers come on campus mirror the template set by California School Boards Association. Most districts abide by the state’s policies for immigration, which have not changed due to the Trump Administration thus far. When any visitor comes on campus, they must first come to check in at the front office. This same rule applies to officers from ICE, who may come with one of two requests: subpoenas requesting for information or judicial warrants. Before acting upon either of these requests, the district may consult an attorney to seek the best course of action.
“Beyond the front office of a school, it is private,” FUHSD Associate Superintendent Trudy Gross said. “So when someone comes to the front office, they have to state what their business is and have to have legitimate business to be at school and move beyond the front office.”
Deportation initiatives and tightened immigration laws are nothing new to the U.S. Since the birth of the nation, various policies have led to the removal of people and groups, often driven by economic concerns, national security threats and social pressures to maintain a racial makeup. By enforcing stricter immigration laws, the government reasoned these actions protect the economy from foreign workers and prevent threats they believed targeted the nation.
Many previous administrations under prior presidents created initiatives to strengthen immigration security by building a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, keeping a database of illegal immigrants’ fingerprints and allowing federal agencies to collaborate with federal authorities. In recent months leading up to and after Trump’s inauguration, the Trump Administration intensified previous policies, such as former President Bill Clinton’s Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, to restrict immigration. Trump’s administration has implemented several unprecedented policies: such as enhanced border security with military personnel and increasing arrests of undocumented individuals, even people without criminal records.
Trump’s modern-day tactics of deporting immigrants using military cargo planes is a first in history. Deportations, typically enforced by civilian law enforcement, are now partly handled by the U.S. military. Recently the Trump Administration has used the Alien Sedition Act of 1798 to bypass laws limiting military role in immigration disputes. This act has only been used three times prior to the Trump Administration in the past 200 years: the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In all of these previous scenarios, this act was enacted in the context of Congress declaring war. Trump’s unconventional use of this law has sparked controversy surrounding his deportation policies. Many question whether it is appropriate to use the military for civil affairs within the nation. On the other hand, supporters of involving the military argue that the increase in immigration is an “invasion” of the U.S. by foreign countries.
“By putting these immigrants on a military plane, Trump is essentially criminalizing them,” University of San Francisco professor of politics Marco Durazo said. “He is hyping the military might of the country, and doing it in a bonehead way; because you are spending $800,000 to deport 100 people on military cargo planes that a regular plane with ICE would have cost you $8000.”
In addition, the administration has repurposed facilities such as Guantánamo Bay in Cuba for detaining migrants with alleged criminal backgrounds. The detention facility has traditionally housed serious terrorism suspects and is infamous for its torture and incorrigible treatment of its detainees. Legal due process is not granted to the captives. The few migrants that are held in Guantánamo Bay typically reside in a separate Migrant Operations Center. Under the Trump Administration, however, the facility now houses many migrants with no prior criminal record besides being undocumented.
Deporting undocumented immigrants without criminal history has occurred in various instances in U.S. history. However, it typically occurs during a war or economic recession, in which immigrants have been labelled as scapegoats. During the Great Depression, Los Angeles witnessed a rounding up of a few thousand people, a mix of undocumented and U.S. citizens of Latino descent. These immigrants were viewed to be a liability for people at the time.
Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” targeted many Latin American immigrants using similar methods to Trump’s “Operation Aurora”. Unable to involve the National Guard, Operation Wetback utilized military strategies and Border Patrol resources to round up immigrants and send them back to Mexico on crowded boats and planes. Similar to the Mexican deportations during the Great Depression, even U.S. citizens of Latino descent were deported back to unfamiliar regions in Mexico.
While former President Barack Obama focused mainly on immigrants with serious crime convictions, Obama did deport new arrivals without criminal backgrounds. Trump’s policy of deporting undocumented immigrants without clearly stating the target groups contrasts with Obama’s layout of specifically deporting criminals and new arrivals.
“The largest distinction is Bush and Obama focused on ‘criminal aliens’ in their language,” Durazo said. “But now, Trump is trying to deport them all. They’re removing women. They’re removing children. There’s a documented instance in New York where they actually tried to deport a veteran, someone who had served in the military.”
Additionally, ICE agents have been deployed nationwide to conduct operations in schools and churches. Until Trump’s presidency, ICE designated schools as sensitive locations where enforcement actions were typically avoided. But recent policies lifted this restriction allowing ICE to enter such areas. A Justice Department memo issued on Feb. 5 declared that state and local government officials, sanctuary cities and areas, such as schools and places of worship will no longer legally be allowed to hinder the federal initiative to oust illegal immigrants. Consequences for not complying with federal ICE searches include budget cuts for institutions that heavily rely on government funding.
Restrictions on immigration similar to those established by the Trump Administration were implemented during the early and mid-1800s. In Boston, Massachusetts alone, 37,000 Irish refugees arrived in a matter of weeks. With an overwhelming number of Irish migrants nationwide, nativist sentiment spread among working-class Americans, who worried about competition in the employment market and religious conflict between the Protestant Americans and Catholic Irishmen. Massachusetts implemented laws that made it legal for immigrants, regardless of age or citizenship, to be forcibly arrested and sent back to Europe without basic supplies. Deportations of the Irish immigrants were largely state-driven initiatives, contrasting with Trump’s federal crackdown on illegal immigrants. With Trump’s focus largely on Latin American foreigners, the nativist sentiment against the Catholic Irishmen is comparable to the anti-Latino sentiment throughout the U.S. now.
Racial motives behind deportation have been seen throughout history including the anti-Chinese sentiment in the mid-1800s that caused Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act. This act banned all immigration of Chinese laborers, prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens, and allowed the deportation of undocumented individuals. The Chinese Exclusion Act was one of the first major US laws that prevented immigrants from settling in the U.S., but it was the first law to authorize deportations. Such actions of excluding and restricting access into the country could be seen in the modern-day Trump deportation policies, but unlike the Chinese Exclusion Act that targeted a specific group due to racial motives, Trump’s policies were framed as a matter of national security and law enforcement.
Ironically, less than half a century ago, the Republican Party supported immigration reform and the legalization of undocumented immigrants. Under former President Ronald Reagan’s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, employers were penalized for hiring undocumented immigrants but previously undocumented immigrants also were given an opportunity to legalize. This effectively prevented an economic crisis that would come as a result of mass deportations, but also addressed concerns over undocumented immigrants not abiding by immigration laws.
The future of America and its immigrants will be shaped by ongoing policies on deportations and human rights. While the Trump Administration argues that stricter immigration policies are there to protect national security and economic stability, the public warns that it could violate civil liberties and families. As these debates continue, the administration has put forth even more aggressive plans for the future, utilizing all available resources on deportations.
“Immigration is more than just a political issue,” freshman Ismael Salazar said. “It’s also a human issue. I see all the resilience and determination that drives people to seek new opportunities here in the U.S. and all the challenges they faced, from all the legal problems to having to adapt to a whole new culture.”
