La gran persecución: el año en el que Trump concibió un Estados Unidos sin migrantes
Key Takeaways
- It has been reported that an internal, wide-ranging effort during the Trump administration aimed to sharply reduce both legal and unauthorized immigration to the United States.
- The administration used a mix of asylum restrictions, asylum "metering," the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, "Remain in Mexico"), a stricter public‑charge rule, refugee‑cap cuts, and expanded enforcement to implement that change.
- Those policies—some formal regulations, some administrative practices—had immediate human costs: families separated, asylum seekers forced to wait in dangerous border towns, and long-lasting legal uncertainty for many applicants.
- For people navigating the immigration system now: expect continued backlog-driven delays and the need for legal advice, careful documentation, and vigilance about shifting rules and court decisions.
What EL PAÍS reports
It has been reported that a concentrated period in which the Trump White House and its agencies designed a coordinated effort effectively to shrink immigration flows and remove protections for would‑be migrants. According to the reporting, this was not just ad‑hoc policymaking but a broad strategic push across agencies. Allegedly, the approach combined public messaging with regulatory and procedural changes to make both legal migration and asylum far more difficult. Because many of those actions took the form of agency rules, memos, and operational orders rather than new statutes, they were implemented rapidly and provoked litigation that reverberates today.
Policy tools and legal mechanics
The administration employed several distinct legal tools. MPP (the Migrant Protection Protocols) required many non‑Mexican asylum seekers to await U.S. hearings in Mexico rather than being paroled into the United States; the CDC’s Title 42 public‑health order (used beginning in 2020) allowed rapid expulsions at the border on public‑health grounds; and the 2019 "public‑charge" rule expanded factors that could be used to deny admission or green‑card adjustments to immigrants likely to use public benefits. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, the agency that processes most visas and naturalization applications) adjusted enforcement priorities, asylum screening, and filing procedures—actions that in many cases were later challenged in court. Refugee admissions were reduced to historically low numbers during the period, and family separation followed a "zero tolerance" prosecution strategy for unlawful entry in 2018.
Human impact and what this means now
On the ground, the effects were stark. Asylum seekers faced long waits in dangerous border towns or immediate expulsion. Families experienced trauma and legal limbo when separations occurred. Legal‑immigration applicants saw processing rules tighten and delays lengthen, while organizations that assist migrants faced an increased demand for counsel. For someone currently trying to immigrate: expect slow case processing, potential changes depending on litigation outcomes, and the practical necessity of legal representation. Document your case carefully, follow official USCIS and Department of State guidance, and consult an immigration lawyer or accredited representative about how prior rules and ongoing court rulings might affect your application.
Source: Original Article