The American Tumult and its impact on migration

In the summer of 2018, I hailed a cab from Midtown Manhattan to Harlem’s Upper West Side with a friend. As we settled in, Punjabi music filled the car. My Texas-born friend, assuming the driver was from South Asia, asked if I understood the lyrics. After a brief hesitation, I replied, “Yes, but not all the words.”

The song was indeed Punjabi, but in a dialect distinct from what I was familiar with—urban Punjabi spoken by migrants from Pakistan or those with family roots from undivided Punjab like myself. The driver, assuming I was Sikh and from Indian Punjab, struck up a conversation in Punjabi. He revealed that he had been in New York for three-years. He had first arrived in Nicaragua in central America and then made his way to the U.S. illegally via Mexico. He had applied for asylum, citing persecution owing to post-1984 events. When I pointed out that he was only 26 and that Punjab had been largely peaceful since the late 1990s, his response was vague. It was evident that his claim was a pretext to convert illegal migration into legal residency—a phenomenon endemic to the U.S. immigration landscape.

Editorial | ​Not worth the risk: On the U.S., India and illegal emigration 

With the return of Donald Trump’s Presidency, migration policies have become a defining issue. The recent deportation of 104 Indians, primarily from Gujarat, Punjab, and Haryana, underscores the increasing crackdown on illegal migration. Mexico remains the leading country of origin, with reportedly about four million unauthorised immigrants in the U.S. The second-largest group originates from El Salvador, with an estimated 7,50,000 unauthorised immigrants. Indians are the third-largest group with an estimated 7,25,000 Indian immigrants. There is enough authentic information available on social media about the routes and pathways taken by the youth. Empirical evidence suggests that it is not just the poor who are embarking on the treacherous journey of illegal migration to the U.S. Advocacy must play a central role in dismantling the network of illegal migration by raising awareness about the severe legal consequences, financial exploitation and dangers of irregular routes. A crucial part of this effort should focus on educating potential migrants about the nuances and stark realities of the U.S. system, particularly its stringent immigration laws, the risks of detention and deportation, the challenges of securing stable employment without legal status and proper educational skills, and the high cost of living. A part of the information and knowledge also includes about the current U.S. political and social landscape. This will help dispel prevalent myths about easy job opportunities and social mobility, curbing false expectations that are a source of illegal migration.

Illegal migration to the U.S. takes many forms, from asylum claims to fraudulent marriages. On one of my frequent flights from Delhi to New York in the last sixteen-years, I once sat beside a 78-year-old Gujarati man who had just obtained permanent residency. When I inquired about his immigration process, he casually mentioned his recent marriage in New Jersey. When asked if the marriage was genuine, he merely smiled.

Instances of fraudulent marriages abound. In the summer of 2009, an American journalist working with the New York Times (NYT) sought my assistance on a case involving a Pakistani man of Punjabi origin detained in the post-9/11 crackdown on illegal migrants. He had died in a New Jersey prison, prompting a lawsuit by a human rights organisation seeking compensation for his family. However, complications arose when a woman from Pakistan stepped forward, claiming to be his only legal wife with his kids. Upon learning about the case, the Pakistani man’s alleged wife in Pakistan approached the organisation, claiming to be his only legal spouse and demanding compensation. At the NYT Headquarters in Manhattan, she told me in Punjabi on phone from Pakistan, “Bhaijaan (brother), I am his lawful wife with kids; he only married the American woman for papers. Please help me, for Allah’s sake.” The American wife of African American origin, however, disputed her claim. Such cases highlight the tangled web of illegal migration and complications that they may cause.

In the recent past, the fate of illegal migrants has often been determined by the political landscape and the set of issues and concerns that are shaping the same. For instance, Brooklyn’s Coney Island Avenue, once dubbed “Little Pakistan,” saw an exodus of 20,000 Pakistani-origin residents between 2001 and 2008 owing to the stringent security measures post-9/11 and waves of Islamophobia impacting the U.S. The Brooklyn-based Council of Peoples Organization reported that more than 13,000 Muslim immigrants were placed in deportation proceedings, with Pakistanis forming a significant chunk. The Special Registration program allegedly disproportionately targeted Muslim-majority nations, fuelling resentment and anxiety among immigrant communities. Out of 25 countries whose nationals living in United States were asked to register themselves after the 9/11 incident under the Special registration order, 24 countries were Muslim countries, Mohammad Razvi , the then executive Director of Brooklyn based Council of Peoples Organization had told me in 2008.

While illegal migration dominates political discourse, legal migration follows an entirely different trajectory. In a 2005 interview, former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh remarked, “There is hardly any middle-class family in India without a relative in the U.S.” The sentiment holds true today, as Indian professionals continue to secure a substantial share of H1-B visas—predominantly in technology and now potentially AI sectors. For Indians who have already obtained citizenship or Green Cards, Mr. Trump’s immigration policies will have little direct impact. Even those in line for permanent residency through employment-based visas or other categories there is little to fear, as they have cleared extensive vetting. However, the rigid 7% per-country cap on Green Cards remains a persistent irritant for Indian nationals, delaying their transition to permanent resident status or citizenship. Most of these Indian employees are on the restrictive H1-B visa, a non-immigrant visa that allows U.S. employers to employ foreign nationals in specialty occupations in the U.S. for a specified period with several restrictions. This prevents back-and-forth movement of Indian-origin workforce between the U.S. and India, which is common between western Europe and the U.S.

At the same time, the American identity is constantly evolving, shaped by competing narratives. In conversations with some native-born American friends, it is common to hear that illegal immigrants are courageous individuals who risk everything for a better future—aligning with the nation’s self-image as a land of opportunity. However, many others argue that unchecked migration strains public resources, exacerbates crime, and fuels economic disparities. Post-pandemic realities have further complicated matters. On a recent visit to New York, where I have lived for more than decade, I was struck by the rampant homelessness and urban violence, particularly in areas previously considered safe. The continuous influx of migrants into cities such as New York, already struggling with economic inequalities, has only intensified tensions.

This is not the first time that the deportation is taking place from the U.S. During Barack Obama’s Presidency (2009–2017), the U.S. deported approximately three million undocumented immigrants. Because of records set for deportations, particularly in the early years, he was dubbed by the immigrant rights group as the “Deporter-in-Chief.” The renewed publicising of the deportation of illegal migrants, where they have been transported in military planes, is taking place in a particular context. In the polarised U.S. polity, the congressional districts in some of the swing/battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, have decided the last three Presidential contests. The suburban and rural parts remain conservative and racially homogenised — mostly white. The economic divide has widened, with asset-owning elites benefiting from rising equities, while the middle and lower classes grapple with inflation and stagnant wages. This discontent has fuelled Mr. Trump’s resurgence, as his anti-immigration stance resonates with those feeling left behind though lowly paid illegal migrants are hardly a reason for their current financial fate.

The present change in the U.S. administration may have indirect consequences for fresh flow of legal immigrants from non-European countries as evidenced by the pattern seen in the first term of President Trump. The rise of white nationalism and racially motivated crimes may deter skilled immigrants from seeking opportunities in the U.S. Little discussed is the perceived sense of insecurity amid heightened white nationalism that borders on racism, particularly for the high-skilled people from Asian countries. In the first term of President Trump, safety as a factor to migrate or not became important for high-skilled migrants, particularly from non-European countries. Even in cosmopolitan hubs such as New York, where nearly half the population is foreign-born, police unions endorsed Mr. Trump in 2020, citing his strong backing for law enforcement—a move reflective of deeper societal rifts.

Linked with this is the fact that in the United States of America, white supremacist terrorism had been institutionally listed as one of the prime national terrorism threats. In its 2020 annual report, coinciding with Mr. Trump first term, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness had mentioned that “White supremacist extremists will pose a high threat to New Jersey in 2020 as supporters of this ideology demonstrate their willingness and capability to carry out attacks, direct and inspire sympathisers online, and attempt to network globally.” The report is significant owing to New Jersey’s proximity to NYC, which was the main target of the 9/11 attacks. The economy of New Jersey and that of NYC is strongly integrated as many people live in the former and work in the latter. The reverse is also true in some cases. On its own, New Jersey is important as it has a large immigrant population, many of whom are first-generation Americans or immigrants holding PR or H1-B visas from non-European backgrounds.

Echoing the report at a federal level, the then FBI director, Christopher Wray, had reportedly elevated its assessment of the threat posed by racially motivated violent extremists in the U.S. to a ‘national threat priority’ for the fiscal year, 2020. He said the FBI had placed the risk of violence from such groups “on the same footing” as threats posed to the country by foreign terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State (IS) and its sympathisers. Over the years, many have called out the double standards of the U.S. law-enforcing authorities and the media for not calling the acts of violence committed by non-minority groups as acts of terrorism. These acts were usually clubbed under hate crimes. An increase in the intensity of the attacks had brought a decisive change in categorisation by the authorities. In July 2019, Mr. Wray informed that the FBI had recorded about 100 arrests of domestic terrorism suspects in the past nine months and that most investigations of that kind involve some form of white supremacy. The rise of Trumpian politics has only amplified the trend. This, coupled with the diminishing blue collar jobs on account of the export of manufacturing jobs, automation and the resultant economic distress, has made matters worse. The prevailing poor social capital in some communities may be an added catalyst. Social media has come in handy, with online echo chambers reinforcing the prejudices about minority groups, in igniting feelings of perceived victimhood.

Coincidentally, the U.S. demographic composition is constantly shifting. Biracial partnerships are on the rise and minority communities—African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and biracial individuals—now constitute 40% of the population. Census data from 2019 revealed that the white population had declined to 60.1%, down from 77% in 1970. This changing demographic landscape has sparked anxieties about cultural identity. In the past, even in the liberal bastions of the U.S., a deep-seated anxiety has pervaded about the growing challenge of minority influx and its impact on the overall cultural landscape. The late Yale University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, in his book Who Are We?, argued that mass Hispanic migration threatened America’s Anglo-Protestant roots, leading to bilingualism and devaluation of citizenship. The country remains polarised as in terms of the popular vote, President Trump garnered approximately 49.8% of the total votes, while Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris received about 48.3%. This reflects a margin of around 1.5 percentage points in favor of President Trump.

In the present context, Mr. Trump supporters and advisors including Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), will have a role to play in shaping the policy on legal migration to the U.S. In line with his personal experiences as an immigrant and as a leader in the tech industry, Mr. Musk is likely to support the current H-1B regime. The 7% per-country cap on green cards hampers mobility, limiting the potential of Indian professionals in the knowledge economy. Greater flexibility would allow for an exchange of talent pool. However, it is doubtful that big changes on migration will happen, as most of President Trump’s actions or executive actions are likely to manifest as symbolism rather than concrete steps. Also, it is often said that the U.S. system, with its institutional checks and balances, values the broader legitimacy of policy over its efficiency. This normally reinforces the need for any President to reach out widely to both sides of the political aisle for the passage of legislation by the U.S. Congress or the Senate which alone results in substantive changes. However, President Trump is likely to prefer executive orders, as he may have little patience or perseverance to undertake the heavy lifting required for legislation in a highly polarised Congress.

As Foreign Minister Jaishankar recently said in the Parliament, “It is the obligation of all countries to take back their nationals if they are found to be living illegally abroad.” Therefore, it is also incumbent upon countries such as India to adopt a more holistic approach to stemming illegal migration on the ground. A targeted approach is essential, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, and Gujarat, where the ecosystem facilitating unauthorised movement to the U.S. is most entrenched. A coordinated effort between the Central and State Governments is needed to shift the focus to legal and structured migration pathways. The U.S. too should amplify positive incentives to create structured migration pathways in line with its economic needs, as this would help discourage and even dismantle the chain of human smuggling operations that endanger the lives of youngsters.

(Luv Puri has over twenty-years of experience in researching and working on peace and security issues, including his tenure with The Hindu and the United Nations.)