Donald Trump will take office on January 20th. He starts his second term with grand promises on immigration, vowing to carry out “the largest deportation in American history”. Trump has suggested that this could mean deporting 15 to 20 million people, ten times the number he deported during his first term and more than the estimated population of irregular migrants in the country (11 million).
Trump has also pledged to make several other changes to immigration policy, including suspending refugee resettlement, ending the use of the CBP One app and temporary protected status, reimposing Title 42 public health-based emergency border procedures, sealing the border with Mexico and recommencing construction of the border wall begun during his first administration. Both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration have sought to work with Mexico, Panama and other countries through which many migrants pass on their way to the US to control migration. The new Trump administration is likely to continue to do so.
In addition, after years of inaction on immigration, Congress seems poised to adopt the Laken Riley Act in an environment where Republicans are pushing for an early win and Democrats are eager to seem tough on the issue. The Act requires the detention and deportation of immigrants charged with even minor crimes. It would give states a variety of ways to intervene in federal immigration policy, such as challenging decisions regarding the release of immigrants and demanding the detention of specific individuals.
If these measures are implemented, they would have far-ranging effects, on migrants, their communities, the US economy, and the countries they come from. This article explores the potential impacts that these measures would have on migrants and mixed migration dynamics in the region.
“Legacy” from Trump’s first term in office
Between 2017 and 2021, Trump’s administration implemented a range of measures that intensified immigration enforcement, restricted legal pathways for migrants, and threatened migrants’ protection.
He focused on deportations, over 1.5 million individuals were deported under his first administration (though both Biden and Obama deported similar numbers). His strategy included increasing use of immigration detainers (requests issued by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) to a state or local law enforcement agency to hold an individual in custody for a specific period), expanding use of Article 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which allows local law enforcement to act as immigration agents), and travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries. Trump sought to end programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and drastically reduced the number of refugee admissions.
In his last administration, Trump suspended, then scaled back the resettlement program, reducing the annual ceiling for refugee admissions reached an all-time low of 18,000 in FY 2020. Only 11,814 refugees were admitted to the US that year, compared to the 100,034 in FY 2024.
While Trump was not able to fully implement the border wall he promised in his campaign, existing barriers were fortified, and enforcement was intensified by implementing Migration Protection Protocols, commonly referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed.
Trump also signed Asylum Cooperative Agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, trying to condition humanitarian aid on the countries’ efforts to stop their citizens from seeking asylum in the US. In his first term, the Trump administration also invoked Title 42, a public health authority that allowed many new arrivals to be turned away without the possibility of applying for asylum, arguing it was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under Trump the annual ceiling for refugee admissions reached an all-time low of 18,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.
What is different this time around?
Trump made promises similar to the ones he is making now in his last term but failed to deliver on many. Yet, the key difference to his first term is that the country has become more accepting of immigration restrictions, which the Democratic administration has also implemented. According to a Gallup poll from June 2024, 55% of US Americans wanted to see immigration decrease, the highest since 2001. Following this shift in public opinion, the Biden administration adopted a more conservative approach to immigration, mirroring some Trump-era policies.
In FY 2024, 271,484 people were deported, the highest number in a decade, surpassing the number deported by Trump in any single year. Detention has also become more widely used and harsher. Twenty-three people died in US immigration custody during the Biden administration, raising concerns about the conditions of ICE detention. In addition, the Biden administration severely limited access to asylum in a June decree that closes off access to most asylum claims when daily entries exceed an average of 1,500 per day over a 28-day period (a threshold which has not been seen since early 2020). In October 2024, the Biden administration indicated that it would not allow individuals with Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans special humanitarian parole to renew that status, leaving about half a million beneficiaries of this status uncertain about their future, even without any intervention by Trump.
This hardening of immigration policies during the Biden administration reflects an increasing willingness to adopt harsh measures that are likely to make it easier for Trump to implement his plans successfully and undermine Democratic objections to measures such as mass deportations. In addition, Trump is in a stronger political position now than he was in 2017. In 2016, he won the presidency, but not the popular vote, giving him a weaker mandate. The Republican Party also has a stronger majority in the Senate than they did in 2017 and a number of appointees from the previous Trump administration hold important judicial posts. In this context, Trump is in a stronger position to implement his policy priorities. In addition, his failure to achieve some of his more radical plans during his first time in office could push him to go further to achieve them this time around.
Consequences for migrants
A few reports suggest that migrants are rushing to the US border before Trump takes office. While some are doing this, overall migration has decreased along the corridor from the Darien to Honduras to the US Southern border. This trend started in June/July 2024 and has intensified since November. To a certain extent, these trends are likely driven by tougher immigration policies implemented by the Biden administration as well as by migrants waiting to see how immigration policy will shift and assessing how they should react. The sustained pressures of poverty, conflict, and serious human rights violations that drive migrants from home, however, will continue to drive migration. In this context, Trump’s plans raise a number of concerns for migrants.
Mass deportations could impact both deportees and other migrants
Deportations have a significant impact on those who are deported, other migrants in the US, and their communities.
Even before Trump takes office, the fear of looming mass deportations is creating real consequences. For example, Haitians in Springfield Ohio, who have been specifically targeted in Trump’s public discourse, are reportedly moving to Democratic states where they hope to have greater protection against mass deportation. This forces them, however, to abandon jobs, homes, and social networks in ways that may make them more vulnerable.
Mass deportation would likely also have impacts on migrants en route. For example, as many migrants rely on shelters at the US-Mexico border, more difficult procedures at the US border and/or an increase in deportees to Mexico could further strain these limited resources, leaving some without shelter or assistance.
TV report from local stations: Arizona’s Family (3TV / CBS 5) – 18 January 2025
Tougher border policies could push migrants to irregular routes and perilous journeys
It is well established that tougher border policies lead to increased use of irregular, often more dangerous, routes and smugglers. For example, an analysis of fencing policies in Arizona found that the fencing did not really deter migrants, but rather forced them to take longer and more remote routes, which exposed them to risk of injury and death.
Tougher immigration policies, such as restricting access to asylum, could also push immigrants further into irregularity, increasing their vulnerability and creating new challenges for migration management. For example, asylum seekers and migrants waiting along the border in Mexico who have applied for appointments through the CBP One App are worried that they may be stranded if Trump discontinues the program. If this happens, some are likely to try to cross outside formal border crossing points. This could lead to a short-term increase in arrivals, as individuals waiting for an appointment could all decide to come at once.
An estimated 92% of all unauthorized entries are “apprehended” by border patrol, mostly because they surrender themselves to apply for asylum.
Restricting asylum and increasing border control could also make new arrivals harder to track and count. At the moment, an estimated 92% of all unauthorized entries are “apprehended” by border patrol, mostly because they surrender themselves to apply for asylum. If they are not able to do so, they are likely to attempt to evade authorities and disappear.
Militarised border policies could increase abuses
Another area of concern is the militarisation of the border, a trend which has been ongoing since the 1980s. Trump has expressed particular enthusiasm for using military assets, although he usually mentions this in the context of deportation rather than border control. There is legal controversy over under what authority Trump could carry out such a deployment and how the administration would deal with prohibitions against using the military for law enforcement. Augmenting military engagement risks increasing the prevalence of rights violations, including sexual, verbal, and physical harassment that have already been reported to be conducted by border control agents.
Consequences for countries in the region
Trump’s policies are also expected to put pressure on countries of origin, transit and destination in the region who are likely to have to respond to those who fail to reach, or are returned from, the US.
Mass deportations could increase pressures on receiving countries
Mass deportations could place significant pressure on the countries to which migrants are returned. No country is likely to be more affected than Mexico, the country of origin of an estimated half of all undocumented immigrants currently living in the US. To support their nationals in the US, Mexican officials responded by increasing the capacity of consulates, hiring lawyers, and launching an app that makes it easier for citizens to contact the consulate and support citizens caught up in deportation proceedings.
In the last year, about 5,000 Mexicans have been returned per week. Of these, around 500 are received in Mexico City and provided with temporary shelters, job search assistance, and benefits by the Mexican government. While the government has indicated willingness to receive Mexican deportees, building 25 new shelters, a stark increase in deportations could create logistical challenges and limit the resources the government is able to provide.
There is also the possibility that the US will press Mexico to receive non-Mexican deportees. Since 2020, the number of irregular migrants in Mexico is estimated to have tripled. US policies such as Title 42 and “Remain in Mexico” have contributed to this pattern. The increase of individuals in need in Mexico, whether deportees or migrants en route will strain services and perhaps also public support.
Mass deportation would also likely have a significant impact on Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, the source of the largest irregular immigrant populations in the US after Mexico. If Trump were to cancel temporary protected status for El Salvador and Honduras, as he has threatened to do, even more could be deported. Individuals are already regularly returned to these countries, but governments “don’t have the capacity” to take more people, according to the Honduran deputy foreign minister Antonia Garcia. These countries are also pushing back against the proposal, with the Honduran president recently suggesting that the country might cancel a deal with the US to host a major military base if the deportations are carried out.
For other countries in the region, such as Haiti, deportations could both challenge the government’s ability to respond as well as exacerbate the already dire humanitarian situation.
Deportations could decrease remittances to countries of origin and impact the US economy
Deportations would also deprive receiving countries of the remittances that members of the community in the US previously provided. Mexico, for example, received $63 billion in remittances in 2023, or 4% of GDP. In Mexico, this negative economic impact could be exacerbated by an economic slowdown related to the imposition of new import tariffs by the Trump Administration. In Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, remittances are even more vital to the economy, representing an estimated 20-30% of national income in 2023.
Peterson Institute for National Economics, March 2024
Mass deportation would also impact the US economy, where undocumented immigrants hold vital jobs, contribute tax revenue and consume American products. Undocumented immigrants make up 4.6% of the US labour force, with over 1 in 10 workers in key industries such as construction (13.7%) and agriculture (12.7%) being undocumented. An analysis by academic Viridiana Rios estimates that a scenario in which 1.3 to 8.3 million are deported and tariffs are imposed would lead to a 2.8 to 9.7% contraction of the US economy. The American Immigration Council estimates that deporting all undocumented immigrants would result in a loss of between 4.2% and 6.8% of US GDP.
Moreover, mass deportations are expected to increase inflation, cause higher budget deficits, and reduce employment opportunities for US-born workers. Historical data shows that “for every one million unauthorized immigrant workers seized and deported from the United States, 88,000 native workers were driven out of employment” as migrant workers cannot simply be replaced by native workers. At the same time, the cost of deportations is significant, with calculations suggesting that a a one-time mass deportation of 13.3 million immigrants would cost at least $315 billion US dollars, including arrests, detentions, legal processing, and removals.
Suspending resettlement and minimizing regular pathways could strand migrants in countries with few resources
As noted above, reducing legal mechanisms could increase pressures on migrants to move irregularly. One mechanism to increase regular pathways was the Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs), created in 2023. Although the Trump administration has not detailed any specific plans for the SMOs, so far they have operated primarily by offering refugee resettlement. As such, it is unlikely that Trump, who has pledged to suspend resettlement and reduced the number of refugees, would continue them. Discontinuing the SMOs, however, cuts off a legal option for those who use them, leaving them with little choice other than to move irregularly or remain in countries like Colombia already struggling to respond to the needs of vulnerable groups of migrants with limited resources. If Trump suspends the program, individuals who have already progressed significantly towards resettlement could be stranded in countries with few resources for a long time. The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) reports that they continue to try to resolve cases of individuals accepted for resettlement but still stranded since the first Trump presidency. In some cases, families will be separated as some members may have arrived while others remain in process. This could both create challenges for the governments that currently host them and incentivise irregular travel to the US.
Conclusion: a dim scenario for mixed migration in the Americas
It remains to be seen how exactly the Trump administration’s policies will be enacted. As in his first term, there will be legal challenges, opposition from states, and practical obstacles to carrying out his agenda. How they are implemented will have a significant impact on how they affect migrants, mixed migration dynamics and the region.
However, based on the experience of the first Trump administration, the announced plans and already existing stringent border policies, we can expect a significant impact on migrant rights and more hardship for migrants, both for those in the US and elsewhere in the region.
In addition, the proposed measures will pressure countries in the region that are already struggling to respond to migration challenges. They may also undermine the progress made under the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection and regional cooperation more broadly, which has been widely cited as a key reason for reducing apprehensions at the border. Trump’s aggressive and transactional tactics, including withholding aid and threatening tariffs and mass deportations, risk straining relationships with regional leaders like Mexico’s president Claudia Sheinbaum and Honduras’ President Xiomara Castro, and could undermine regional cooperation on other migration management issues.
Policies restricting both lower-skilled migrant labour and high-skilled knowledge workers could also be challenged by companies and employers in the US.
Policies restricting both lower-skilled migrant labour and high-skilled knowledge workers could also be challenged by companies and employers in the US. The incoming administration has faced controversy over H1B visas, which allow companies to sponsor highly qualified foreigners. Trump restricted access to foreign worker visas in his first term and has targeted the H1B program in his public remarks. However, this positioning has raised concerns from key Trump allies, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who he has tapped to run a newly created department of government efficiency. Musk and Ramaswamy argue that the H1B program should actually be expanded because tech companies (such as Musk’s Tesla electric car company) need these employees to maintain profitability. This has angered many in Trump’s base who see this as prioritising foreign over American workers and caused Trump to course correct. Even if the H1B program is extended, few of the most vulnerable would be in a position to access it.
It also remains to be seen how this raft of measures will impact mixed migration dynamics. Migrants are likely to adjust their routes and strategies as they have in response to changing policies over the last few years. Whether other countries, for instance Brazil, emerge as new destination countries as a result is uncertain at this point.
With the factors that push migration, such as conflict, violence, poverty and climate change intensifying, it is likely that high levels of migration will continue. The totality of Trump’s efforts in his first term only reduced the population of irregular migrants in the US by approximately 3% and had minimal impact on regular migration. In addition, the number of encounters at the US southern border increased consistently through the first years of the Trump presidency from 415,517 in FY 2017 to 977,509 in FY 2019. Increased deportations in the second Trump administration might have a greater impact on reducing the number of irregular migrants in the US, but with regional governments estimating that up to 40% of deportees migrates again, the overall impact is uncertain. If regional cooperation deteriorates, this could also increase arrivals at the US Southern border.
Trump’s policies are likely to have a wide range of impacts on individual lives, on families, on businesses and on the communities both from which they come and where they have settled in the US.
Even scaled back, however, Trump’s policies are likely to have a wide range of impacts on individual lives, on families, on businesses and on the communities both from which they come and where they have settled in the US. Moreover, these developments are set to intensify the hardships faced by those in transit, heightening the need for robust protection and support amidst an increasingly precarious landscape for mixed migration in the Americas.
Finally, Trump’s measures could have implications beyond the region, particularly in a global context where the right to asylum is being eroded. The US has played a leadership role in refugee protection through support for asylum, humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement and encouraging global cooperation on refugee issues (including by supporting UNHCR, the LA Declaration Framework and the Resettlement Diplomacy Network). Undermining the US commitment to asylum undermines its ability to effectively engage these networks and encourage global cooperation.
A stark reduction of resettlement by the US could exacerbate the already woeful lack of protection globally.
Concerning Trump’s plans for refugee resettlement, the US sets an example as a global leader in resettlement, receiving the largest number of refugees in the world in absolute numbers even when Trump reduced the program’s capacity (a number of other countries take more refugees per capita). In a context where European countries are massively reducing resettlement numbers and the number of people in need of resettlement is steadily increasing, a stark reduction of resettlement by the US could exacerbate the already woeful lack of protection globally.