This week’s summary

There are lots of various actions attributable to ICE this week. Few of them are listed below:

• Guide to the Countries on Trump’s 2025 Travel Ban List – the countries were banned because of what Mr. President called “deficiency of vetting process” but could be removed from the list if there is significant improvement.
  
• The divergent immigration challenges in the U.S. and Europe – immigration in the US tends towards cultural compatibility but is more oriented towards previous colonies in Europe.
  
• The country where the left (not the far right) made hardline immigration laws – Denmark is now a leading European country that is implementing restrictive immigration policy.

Core analysis

There is a growing disparity in wealth and opportunities between the global north and the global south. Although many countries have witnessed economic growth in the last few decades, the bulk of such growth and opportunities have gone to most countries in the global north. The “Western” countries in particular have witnessed enormous economic growth relative to the rest of the world. For the most part, especially in Africa and Asia, the dwindling economic fortunes and civil conflicts have combined to drive large numbers of people away from those areas.

Divergence in immigration law would redirect the flow of migrants from one area to another, alter the demography and redistribution of opportunities for various nationalities, among other likely impacts.

Geopolitical Implication

Mass deportation would limit opportunities for some countries, especially Latin American countries, whose citizens are in large numbers in the US due to proximity and previous policy focus. This would not necessarily create opportunity for them in the EU, even if the EU system is more oriented towards humanitarian assistance.

People are naturally inclined to move in search of better opportunity. If the legal pathway becomes shrunk, they might be tempted to take risks in order to get to the US. This would potentially add to the humanitarian crisis in many Latin American countries, at least in the short term.

Border countries like Mexico are more likely to see an increase in the number of smuggling activities among people who are determined to get to the US. Also, many people who are trying to escape crippling gang activities are likely to be trapped in the vicious cycle.

Limited opportunities in the US for African and Asian citizens may increase the pressure on EU countries if the present policy remains in place. We may potentially witness a resurgence in human and labor trafficking in the EU, especially along the Balkan and Mediterranean regions, in view of limited opportunities elsewhere. Countries that were considered less lucrative for immigration in the EU may become potential alternatives in view of their relative opportunities.

Finally, any perceived gains from the restrictive immigration policy in the US may give impetus to right-wing and far-right parties in the EU to launch themselves to political dominance. Although the current political leaning is mostly towards center-right, current happenings might influence a move toward a more rightward orientation.

Strategic implications

Divergence in immigration policy can potentially redistribute the flow of migrants in terms of numbers and demographics. It also has internal and external dimensions for both regions. In the US, the immigration policy mostly leans towards economic need. Migrants have been the bedrock of the growth in sectors such as agriculture, construction, social services, manufacturing, etc. This may cause disruptions in some key sectors in the short run. Cheap migrants are not necessarily replaceable with local talent or other talent-based immigration pathways due to overqualification and/or skill downgrade.

Because the EU’s immigration policy is relatively less restrictive at the moment, we might witness a surge in the number of refugees and asylum seekers similar to the surge in 2014/2015. The EU Blue card has not been as successful as the US’s equivalent (green card). The change in immigration focus may change the demography of immigrants in both countries.

Insider Insight

The immigration policy in the US is still unfolding. While President Trump has made it clear that he intends to achieve the highest deportation of migrants in the US history, the pathway to achieve that is still unclear. The initial plan was to deport undocumented migrants, especially those with criminal records. The practical application has suffered from various somersaults, depending on what Mr. President wants. ICE has been given a freer mandate to achieve that target.

However, it is unclear what immigration pathway President Trump is going to use to ensure that the US remains very competitive in attracting talents that can drive the economy.

It is unclear how the EU would respond to the policy change in view of many factors. Each country has different economic needs and political focus. These would most likely be the over-arching factors in deciding what to do next. The political ideology of the dominant parties would influence whether they take a cue from what is happening in the US or move to be a center of attraction for talents.

Strategic Recommendation

The divergence would create different opportunities and pathways both in the US and the EU.
In the US, there is higher potential for other talent-based pathways, especially if President Trump follows through with his promise to create better immigration pathways for international students who completed their education in the US. The US is a large economy that is constantly creating opportunity for talents. There is a higher likelihood for more absorption capacity after the initial disruption. The talent-based pathways, such as H-1B, H-2A, O-1, TN etc. might witness growth in the coming years. It may take a while to see the direction it would take, but we can take a bet on having more talent-based pathways in the near future.

In the EU, refugees and asylum seekers might face increased scrutiny due to a potential increase in the number of applicants and the strain on the existing infrastructure. The fact that there is free internal movement means more countries within the area are likely to oppose the existing internal arrangement. Similar to what happened in 2014 in Sweden when restrictive immigration policy came into force in response to a surge in the number of applicants, many governments might face pressure to restrict inflows of migrants. As such, the prospect of getting approval might dwindle. Immigration pathways such as the EU Blue Card might become more favorable in the recruitment of talents that may be displaced from the US.