This week’s summary

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

• How the Republican megabill targets immigrant finances – the proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is going to negatively impact the finances of both legal and illegal immigrants in the US (Source: CNBC).
• Fewer Democrats are taking the bait on Republican immigration votes – Although some did, the majority of Democrats did not join their republican counterparts in condemning the recent riots in LA (Source: Stocktonia).
• Frustration grows over NY Democrats’ ‘lack of political courage’ on immigration – Democrats are not lending their support to a new state law that count limit the way state and local enforcement officers can cooperate with the ICE (Source: Gothamist).

Core analysis

Part Part of President Trump’s electoral promises that catapulted him to office for the second time is the promise to tackle the issue of undocumented migrants in the US.

The Democrat candidate/party was framed as coming to retain the existing privileges that were being offered to the migrants. The rights of the migrants were also framed as a part of the rich US culture of freedom, given the history of the country’s development with immigrants. Republicans, on the other hand, promised to take back the country by getting rid of the immigrants. Most of the ills in the country were either linked directly or indirectly to the presence of immigrants in the country. The immigrant community, like the Latino Community, had a difficult choice to make. The Latino community was mostly pro-Democrat based on previous voting patterns during elections. However, some of them were frustrated that while Democrats allowed them to enter the country, the party was not doing enough to ensure their smooth integration into the society.

---

Geopolitical Implication

There are strong geopolitical implications for various countries depending on which party and individuals win the Presidential election based on the large ideological divide between them. Both parties’ policy approaches come with different downside and opportunity profiles for each country. Migrant caravans were a popular and regular occurrence during former President Biden’s tenure. This came with lots of opportunities for countries whose nationals were able to make it safely to the US, in terms of remittances and other freebies. Contrastingly, it came with challenges for border countries like Mexico, who had to deal with large numbers of foreign nationals flooding their country. Some smaller towns and villages were completely overrun by the caravan. There was also pressure on resources to cater for their well-being.

The Republican’s tenure also has its own flip side. For example, the quest by President Trump to deport the highest number of immigrants on record is going to place significant stress on some countries. It will also impact diplomatic relationships among the countries involved. While some countries agreed to receive the deportation flights, thus making prior arrangements, others vowed not to accept such flights. There are also challenges with deportation to countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Somalia due to existing diplomatic squabbles that prevent US flights from landing in the country.

---

Strategic implications

The sharp differences between the two parties in terms of immigration policy hold different significant implications both for in-country and external parties.

First, nationals of countries interested in coming to the US are more likely to favor the Democratic party, and by extension the Sanctuary States, because of their pro-immigrant policies. The locals, on the other hand, are more likely to align with the Republican’s anti-immigration posture, especially in the wake of nationalist sentiments and mounting economic hardship.

Second, there might be significant changes in the demography of states in terms of how “Whitish” or otherwise they are. The States that vote Republican have more white voters on average than Democrat states. This could create a long-term structural and system divide across states.

Last, the recent decision of the US’s Supreme Court that allows the government to third countries has significant implications for every party involved. It is still unclear how the actual deportation would play out among the countries involved. For example, what would be the status of immigrants deported to a third country? Would they be deported again to their countries of origin or detained? What are the likely diplomatic scenarios between the countries? It is still unclear how the implementation of this deportation avenue would play out.

---

Insider Insight

There is growing division among members of the community on the one hand and the states on the other hand due to widening differences on immigration policy. For example, there were instances where Republican states like Texas decided to “deport” migrants from the state to Democrat-led states due to their stand on immigration.

Many Democrat-led states are passing tougher legislation that limits the level of cooperation between the States’ enforcement agencies, and the ICE. Immigration policy has also proven to be a strong political weapon that can be deployed to sway voters, depending on the general mood within the economy.

---

Strategic Recommendation

We recommend a more flexible strategy that prioritizes legal pathways to immigration. Although there is no single strategy that can manage the wide divergence between the parties, immigration pathways that fast-track the acquisition of green cards offer better protection for immigrants. Recent happenings have shown that the possession of a green card does not offer foolproof protection. Nevertheless, stable pathways that are less susceptible to variations between the parties. H-1A, H-1B, EB-1, NIW/EB-2, etc., should be prioritized. Individuals should avail themselves of available legal remedies as much as they can.