Donald Trump's recent victory in the United States presidential elections brings to light a series of significant implications for the country's domestic and foreign policy, especially with regard to immigration and international relations. The analysis of Trump's campaign promises, as well as the reactions to his return to power, reveals a complex scenario that may impact not only the USA, but also Latin America and other regions of the world. Among his promises, Trump pledged to implement a series of strict measures regarding immigration, including closing borders and revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which has benefited thousands of Venezuelans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans in recent years.

During his first term, Trump had already promoted mass deportations. However, an analysis by the Cato Institute revealed a complex picture of the effectiveness and contradictions of the immigration policies implemented by Donald Trump during his term, questioning whether these policies have actually provided greater public safety, as he claims. At the time, Trump built much of his political discourse around the promise of “security” with the proposal of strict immigration controls and the mass deportation of non-citizens, many of whom had criminal records, rhetoric that is still repeated constantly today. Data provided by the Cato Institute, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, indicate that these policies have had unintended negative impacts, including increasing illegal entry by criminals and releasing people with serious convictions.

First, the promise of public safety through mass deportation is contradicted by studies that show that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, tend to commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Second, a study by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) found that 60.7 percent of the 38,863 immigrants currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have no criminal records. Among those with criminal records, many were arrested for minor offenses, such as traffic violations. This finding calls into question Trump’s narrative that ICE’s detention system is focused on individuals with significant criminal histories.

The data also reveals that mass deportation, in addition to being costly, is counterproductive, as it removes individuals from the country who are statistically less likely to commit crimes, weakening the safety of many communities. Other research and studies, also by the Cato Institute, indicate that the presence of immigrants in communities is associated with lower rates of violent crimes, such as homicides, and lower rates of drug-related problems. Thus, a policy that prioritizes highly dangerous criminals would bring more benefits to public safety.

Secondly, the Trump administration, according to the report, failed to maintain a focus on deporting convicted criminals. In the early days of his administration, Trump revoked Obama-era guidelines that directed law enforcement to prioritize the arrest and deportation of immigrants who posed threats to public safety. This shift resulted in resources being used to detain asylum seekers and separate families, significantly reducing the priority given to immigrants with serious criminal records. During the height of family separation, Trump shifted his focus from deporting criminals to detaining migrants with administrative issues, such as visa overstays, leaving thousands of serious criminals free in the country. Specifically, data shows that during the Trump administration, nearly 58,184 non-citizens with criminal records were released, including 8,620 violent criminals and 306 murderers. The immigration agency, ICE, reported an increase in cases of non-citizens with repeat offenses due to failures in the enforcement process.

Another point highlighted in the analysis is the effect of mass deportation policies on the effectiveness of border control itself. The failure to prioritize serious criminals has led to a series of flaws in the system that have encouraged the entry of repeat offenders. Trump’s policies have made it easier for criminals to return to the country after failed attempts to enter, with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing a threefold increase in the number of illegal crossings by convicted criminals during his term. The Justice Department has warned that the overzealous crackdown on asylum seekers has allowed more criminals to escape detection. These actions culminated in a record increase in evasions at the border in 2020.

By comparing Trump's performance with Biden's on border issues, with an emphasis on the arrest and deportation of serious criminals, the report reveals that the monthly average of removals of these individuals in 2024, reported by ICE, was higher than Trump's record in December 2020. While Trump sought mass deportations, Biden focused on selective removals of serious criminals, an approach considered "more effective" for public safety. Despite border management considered qualitatively better in the view of these studies, under the Biden administration, between 2021 and 2023, approximately 2 million migrants entered the US mainly through the southern border with Mexico, with 1.1 million deported in the last year alone and another 400,000 in June 2024. Today there is a prospect that, under a new Trump administration, these numbers will increase exponentially.

 

TRUMP BACK IN POWER: HOW FIVE DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS VOTED

Despite being convicted of a crime, Trump won the election in decisive states such as Georgia and North Carolina. These were states where Democrats considered themselves competitive, and in which some groups that then-Vice President Kamala Harris was counting on to strengthen her political base and defeat Trump — young, diverse voters and women concerned about the reduction of abortion rights under a Republican — ended up moving in Trump’s direction.

Still, there was a marked polarization among voters: while women tended to support Harris, men were more inclined to vote for Trump. Furthermore, Trump’s growing support among Latino men and other demographic groups reflects a significant shift in the electorate that could alter the political landscape in the U.S.

As immigrant workers continue to drive economic growth, their political influence is also becoming increasingly significant, particularly in swing states like Nevada. The state has seen a dramatic 724% increase in Spanish-language ads since the 2020 election, with 25% of presidential campaign ads now running in Spanish-language outlets, as reported by Bloomberg. A recent survey by the Hispanic Federation and the Latino Victory Foundation found that 64% of Latinos reported being contacted by campaigns or get-out-the-vote organizations, a notable increase from early September, when half had received no outreach at all. The number is especially significant considering that, until early September of this year, one in two Latinos had not been contacted by any political party.

The AP VoteCast survey (a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago (for Fox News, PBS News Hour, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press) analyzed the electoral performance of Donald Trump, who with his victory in the last election managed to consolidate his traditional base and slightly expand his reach, achieving small but significant gains among black and Latino voters, as well as among men and women. Trump maintained his support among older white voters and made gains with some traditionally Democratic groups, while Vice President Kamala Harris struggled to replicate the gains made by Joe Biden in 2020. 1) White voters: The majority of Trump voters continue to be white, maintaining a composition of approximately 80%, similar to 2020. About two Harris’s majority of voters were white, which also reflects Biden’s coalition in the previous election. White voters overwhelmingly supported Trump, with just under half opting for Harris, and this was especially notable in crucial states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where Trump managed to increase his support despite losing those states in 2020. 2) Black voters: Harris had the support of a majority of black voters (about 80%), but this was down from the 90% who voted for Biden previously. Trump managed to increase his support among younger black men, nearly doubling his share of the vote among that group: about 30% of black men under 45 voted for him, which represented a significant gain for a group that is typically aligned with the Democrats. 3) Latino voters: Among Latino/Hispanic voters, Harris still held on to more than half of the vote, but her support fell compared to Biden, who had the support of about 60% of Latinos in 2020. Trump managed to narrow that margin, especially among Latino men, where almost half voted for Harris, down from 60% who previously supported Biden. This increase indicates a gradual movement of Latinos toward Trump, who has focused on traditional values ​​issues to attract this base. 4) Female voters: Trump also made progress among women. Harris had a slight advantage among female voters (53% to Trump’s 46%), but did not match Biden’s performance, who had won 55% of the female vote in 2020. Trump maintained his support among white women, just over half of whom voted for him. 5) Male voters: Trump made modest gains among male voters, solidifying his lead. The shift in support among men was small but significant for his victory.

It is worth noting that Trump's gains were mainly among younger black and Latino voters and among men and women, with Harris failing to match the support that Biden had in these same groups in 2020. This demonstrates a Republican base that, although still predominantly white, managed to attract voters of different ethnicities and genders, generating a winning coalition.

 

DONALD TRUMP’S MASS DEPORTATION POLICY

Despite controversial statements from Trump supporters and his anti-immigrant rhetoric, Trump has increased his support among Latino voters, rising from 32% in 2020 to 45% in 2024, while Democrats have suffered a significant drop in support among Latino voters. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Latino vote by 38 percentage points, and Joe Biden held a 33-point margin in 2020, but this year, Vice President Kamala Harris only had an eight-point lead.

Trump’s 2024 strategy has included a culturally tailored campaign for Latinos, with ads in Spanish, references to elements of Latino culture, and roundtables to discuss issues such as the economy and border security. Exit polls indicated that these actions had a positive impact on Latinos, with 45% identifying as Republicans, a notable increase compared to previous years.

A publication by the organization Stateline examined Donald Trump’s proposals for a tougher immigration policy, focusing on his plan to carry out a mass deportation program, which he described as “the largest in American history”, if he were reelected. The analysis includes the political, legal, economic and social implications of such an approach, as well as the practical feasibility of its implementation.

 

Proposals and limitations

Trump plans to federalize the National Guard, deploy military troops, and build detention centers to speed up the deportation process. He also proposes to repeal programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and TPS (Temporary Protected Status), as mentioned above—which currently protect hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation. In addition, he seeks to apply the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport immigrants with criminal records and pressure sanctuary states and cities to cooperate with federal authorities.

Experts say the success of these policies depends on the cooperation of states and cities, especially since many of them, such as the so-called sanctuary states, limit or refuse to support ICE. State laws against unauthorized immigration, adopted in states like Arizona, Texas, and Florida, face constitutional challenges, while sanctuary cities continue to resist. Still, Trump is considering withholding federal funds from jurisdictions that do not cooperate.

It is important to note that, according to estimates by the AmericanImmigration Council, deportation costs of approximately 1 million people per year would be required. These costs would involve expanding immigration courts, enforcement agents, and detention facilities. In addition, some nations refuse to accept their deported citizens, and internal bureaucracy in the US may make the process difficult. However, experts suggest that, with the experience gained in the first term, a new Trump administration may be more effective in overcoming such obstacles.

Regarding the economic and social impacts, the mass deportation policy would have significant implications, such as labor shortages, reduced tax contributions, and an impact on the agricultural and service sectors, where many immigrants work; in addition to social impacts, such as the separation of families with mixed status, deportations that especially affect states such as California, Texas, and Florida, which are home to almost half of the undocumented immigrants in the country.

Although Trump promised mass deportations in his first presidential campaign, annual deportations during his administration have been lower than the record set by Barack Obama in 2013. Experts believe that a second, more organized term could significantly increase the numbers.

The main targets of deportations include immigrants with pending removal orders (about 1.3 million people); individuals with criminal records (662,000 cases identified by ICE); and beneficiaries of temporary programs such as DACA and TPS. In addition, millions of pending asylum cases could be affected by changes in law enforcement.

 

THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE U.S. ECONOMY

Immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, both directly by increasing the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and indirectly by strengthening strategic sectors. Representing 17% of the U.S. GDP, generating approximately 3.3 trillion dollars, the presence of immigrants in the labor market and their demographic profile, often young and entrepreneurial, boosts the GDP per capita, reflecting in higher living standards for the entire population.

Paying approximately 525 billion dollars annually in federal, state and local taxes, including 50 billion dollars from undocumented immigrants (although they often do not have access to government benefits), they contribute to the maintenance of Social Security and the reduction of the federal deficit. In this sense, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that recent immigration will generate an increase of US$7 trillion in GDP and US$1 trillion in tax revenues over the next decade.

Immigrants occupy essential positions in strategic sectors such as health, technology, agriculture and construction. Immigrant professionals make up more than 18% of the health workforce and have played a crucial role in the post-pandemic economic recovery, helping to restore supply chains and meet the demand for skilled workers. Entrepreneurship among immigrants is highlighted as a driver of innovation and productivity. Almost half of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their descendants, and they also lead high-tech startups. The report “New American Fortune 500 in 2023: The Largest American Companies and Their Immigrant Roots” reveals that nearly half (44.8%) of the companies listed in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or their children. These 224 companies have a notable impact on the global economy, demonstrating the importance of diversity of backgrounds for economic competitiveness. The impact of immigrants also extends to startups: 64% of US unicorn companies (valued in the billions of dollars) have immigrant founders or leaders, indicating that immigration drives technological innovation and entrepreneurship.

Among Latino immigrants, entrepreneurship is on the rise, with a small business creation rate of 36%, more than double the overall US average. However, these entrepreneurs face significant challenges, such as greater difficulty in accessing credit and lower initial revenues, reflecting structural barriers to economic growth.

 

Impact on the Labor Market

There are two perspectives on the relationship between immigration and jobs for natives. While one theory suggests that immigrants compete with native workers, studies show that immigrants often complement the workforce, diversifying skills and increasingproductivity. Immigration is associated with stronger businesses, economic growth, and job retention for native workers, and does not negatively impact wages. On the contrary, sectors that demand advanced skills may see wage growth thanks to the presence of immigrants. International students also play a significant role, contributing $40.1 billion to the U.S. economy and supporting more than 368,000 jobs in the 2022-2023 academic year alone. This highlights the intersection of education and immigration as drivers of innovation and economic growth.

 

Addressing Population Decline

Immigration is highlighted as a key tool in combating population decline in the U.S., especially in rural communities, where many regions are facing shrinking working-age populations. Studies indicate that a 50% increase in annual immigration could expand the workforce by about 13% by 2040, helping to sustain the economy and essential services such as healthcare. Between 2010 and 2020, the U.S. experienced the slowest population growth of any decade since the 1930s, and fewer children have been born in recent years. As such, the country will need to increase immigration levels to ensure it can continue to sustain its communities and continue to grow the economy.

FWD.us analysis shows that increasing immigration levels by 50% annually would increase the projected U.S. working-age population by about 13% through 2040, which would meet current and growing labor needs while also further expanding the U.S. economy. Other research from FWD.us reveals that more than three-quarters (77%) of rural U.S. counties have fewer working-age people today than they did 20 years ago. These losses could cripple local economies and make it harder for residents to access health care and other critical services. According to the publication, adding just 200 new immigrants per year would reverse the decline in nearly three-quarters (71%) of these counties by 2040: “Decades of data clearly show that immigrants and immigration are good for America and Americans. It is vital that U.S. policymakers work to preserve and enhance the benefits of immigration by building new legal pathways and increasing opportunities for newcomers to support themselves, participate in their local communities, and contribute to the success and prosperity of the United States.”

In light of these studies and other analyses, it is possible to understand that immigration is a fundamental pillar for the economic and demographic sustainability of the United States. Immigration policies, therefore, are not only a humanitarian issue, but an essential economic strategy to address challenges such as an aging population, labor shortages, and strengthening the country’s global leadership.

 

IMMIGRATION AND THE CHALLENGES FOR THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SETTING IN THE USA

Immigration has become a central and polarizing issue in American politics, fueled by record levels of encounters at the US-Mexico border and heated debates about its economic and social impacts. Polls indicate a significant increase in the number of Americans who want to reduce immigration (55% in 2024, the highest rate since 2001). At the same time, analyses by the Congressional Budget Office, as mentioned above, highlight that immigration boosts economic growth and reduces fiscal deficits and inflation.

While current rhetoric on immigration bears similarities to early 20th-century nativist reactions that resulted in restrictive policies such as the National Origins Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924, the demographic context is fundamentally different. Today, the U.S. faces declining birth rates, an aging population, and a rapidly rising old-age dependency ratio (29 percent in 2023, projected to reach 37 percent by 2040). Immigrants, who often arrive young, help expand the labor force and mitigate the effects of demographic aging, both in the short and long term, through their descendants.

Data from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) highlights that immigrants and their children play a critical role in the workforce. In 2023, first- and second-generation immigrants and their descendants accounted for 27% of the U.S. population, up from 20% in 2000. Projections for 2040 show that the second generation will grow by 64%, while the working-age population of U.S.-born families will decline.

Scenarios based on different immigration policies illustrate the variation in the number of working-age immigrant workers. If immigration were reduced to zero, the labor force would fall to 18.5 million by 2040, compared to 46.7 million under a high immigration policy. This difference of 28 million workers demonstrates the impact of immigration in mitigating the old-age dependency ratio and strengthening the economy. According to the Migration Policy Institute study, reducing immigration would have broadly negative effects, including: 1) Lower labor force growth; 2) Pressure on programs like Social Security and Medicare; and 3) Reducing the number of children born in the U.S. to immigrant families, harming the future of the labor force. These effects would be more pronounced in states with already declining working-age populations, such as those in the Rust Belt (such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, for example).

Despite the widespread anti-immigration rhetoric of Trump and Republicans, the data demonstrates the fundamental need for comprehensive reform of immigration policy to align the admission of immigrants with the economic and demographic needs of the United States. In this sense, it is important to create conditions so that immigrants and their descendants can contribute fully to the economy and society, addressing structural barriers, promoting opportunities and taking advantage of their potential.

Trump's immigration proposal for a possible second term is characterized by an incisive approach and measures that could generate divisions. While his supporters see this stance as a way of fulfilling campaign promises, opponents point to the negative consequences (some listed here) in the humanitarian, economic and legal spheres.