Illegal immigration is a muchbandied topic in democracies, for it is very easy to invoke politically and ignite emotions, but complex to handle meaningfully. While failure to check illegal immigration is a failure of the State and its agencies, the rhetoric against it is almost invariably partisan, racial, or communal. In democracies, the State rarely ever acknowledges its own failings and prefers blaming the ‘opposition’ for wrong policies. The fact is that no political party in the world can constitutionally or legally encourage illegal immigration ~ the difference, if any, is in the means of handling the issue and the rhetoric that accompanies it.

There are always two distinct undercurrents around the issue of illegal immigrants ~ the first is of the State to protect its citizens from the pernicious impact of illegal immigrants, and the second of a humanitarian angle. Instead of focusing on plugging gaps, investing in and ensuring proper enforcement of laws governing illegal immigration ~ the narrative usually regresses into fear mongering, xenophobia and reckless solutions that hardly do anything to curb illegal immigration, but instead poison, polarise and weaponise the environment. If the issue of Rohingyas inflamed emotions in India, the issue of migrants from conflict ridden Middle Eastern countries or economically strapped African countries, grips Europe.

Advertisement

Even immigrants from war-torn Ukraine are swamping other European countries. Now, there is the latest militaristic plan to deport up to 15-20 million allegedly illegal immigrants (number not backed by any authority) by US President-elect, Donald Trump that has raised eyebrows. Even though both Democrats and Republicans are actually on the same page as far as blocking illegal immigration into the US is concerned ~ it was Trump who upped the ante by talking about “invasion” of illegal immigrants and promising drastic solutions like, “have no problem using the military, per se”.

Trump, keeping with his style of conspiracy theories, has stuck to the line that South American countries are deliberately sending prisoners or “fighting age” Chinese are embedding themselves in America! As always, there is no data to back these accusations. Trump also conveniently keeps quiet about his own record during his earlier term (2016- 2020) when the noise was solely about the ‘wall’, or a ban on migrants from certain ‘Islamic countries’. But what the polarising noise surrounding his in efficacious ‘travel ban’ and the ‘wall’ did was to give the impression of a more decisive leader who is more effective in checking illegal immigrants than the Democrats.

However, the fact is that illegal immigration numbers during his term hardly bears out his claims. His unsubstantiated (and successful) tirade continued with insisting that a Kamala Harris Presidency would, “allow more than 100 million illegal aliens into our country” and that the “Democrats are the party of open borders, socialism, and crime, whether you like it or not”. Finally, as illegal immigrants emerged as the biggest concern staring at the American electorate, it was the sound and fury of Trump’s promises that won the day against a Harris who only spoke about practicalities like bolstering border security apparatus. Trump also blocked what could have been the first bipartisan deal on illegal immigration in 20 years. Trump’s ‘muscular’ spiel triumphed over Harris’s policyled and enforcement approach, and now the world waits for Trump to act on his words. So how practical is Trump’s solution? Simply put, it is easier said than done.

Trump has been invoking the obscure Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. His own touch is reflective in calling his plan “Operation Aurora” after the city which he had falsely portrayed as under siege from immigrant criminals. But it has clearly cut ice with the wary masses who have fallen for its disruptive appeal, without truly understanding how the dynamics could work. Trump’s constant referencing of the Eisenhower-era ‘Operation Wetback’ (ethnic slur about Mexicans who crossed by swimming the Rio Grande) may be imprudent, as it is suggestive of militaristic means whi ch will fail the test of legality, constitutional spirit and morality.

Secondly, Mexico may not be accommodative of such an approach, and lastly because the physical ‘push-back’ if at all cannot be done for countries without land borders with the United States. But Trump will keep up the war drums and rail and rant in order to show his commitment to the cause ~ thereby, polarising and weaponising the societal environment to such an extent that vigilante justice could break out as frustrations mount. Truth is always the casualty in such theatrical times, as hard data shows that the Joe Biden Presidency deported far more illegal immigrants in 2023 than Trump did in any of his four years of Presidency.

But now the expected resistance to his latest outlandish plans will afford Trump yet another opportunity to reap the moment by talking about the ‘Deep State’, a failed bureaucracy, a failed judiciary, and the need therefore to legitimise his authoritarian ways ~ something that will ironically have many takers, as many see democracy as weak and indecisive. That the eventual cost of legitimizing unconstitutional, authoritarian, and dictatorial ‘efficiency’ always comes back to haunt all citizens without any exception will be a realization that will dawn too late.

Trump’s language is as always, political, and provocative, when he promises that he would, “send elite squads of ICE, Border Patrol, and federal law enforcement officers to hunt down, arrest, and deport every last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left in this country.” Factors like financial costs, operationalizing intent, or even implications on the economy are not on the table for now, for it is only bravado that seemingly suffices for Trump’s limited purpose.

There is also no talk of strengthening border controls, increasing policing staff, investing in technology for border control or forcing accountability on enforcement agencies ~ only talk of militaristic action that will sweep away millions forcibly. Given that anti-immigration sentiment is perhaps the most powerful reason that he has been voted to power, he will flex ‘muscle’ on the same as it would be handy to deflect from responsibilities on other critical issues like economic revival, employment, China, Russia or even social harmony. Countering illegal immigration is indeed a very vital responsibility of the executive but unfortunately it is often used for partisanship, polarisation and distractive reasons that democracies sometimes fall prey to.

The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry