This is Democracy – Episode 289: Trump’s Immigration Executive Orders

[00:00:00] Intro/Outro: This is Democracy.

A podcast about the people of the United States. A podcast about citizenship. About engaging with politics and the world around you.

A podcast about educating yourself on today’s important issues.

And how to have a voice in what happens next.

[00:00:25] Jeremi: Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy.

This week, we are going to discuss immigration, uh, and in particular, we’re going to discuss the effects of, uh, President Donald Trump’s, uh, new executive orders in his first day as president, uh, changing, uh, American immigration enforcement. quite radically. We’re going to talk about, uh, some of these executive orders and what they mean.

And rather than simply criticize or valorize what he’s doing, we’re going to have the opportunity as we do in every episode every week to put these orders in historical perspective. How are they different from what has been done before? How do they echo the past and how does that historical perspective help us to make sense of these orders, what they mean and what.

They will do. We’re joined by the person who I think is one of the very best scholars of immigration, particularly of immigration history in the United States. This is Sarah Coleman, a prior guest and good friend of ours, Professor Coleman. Thanks for joining us today.

[00:01:28] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity.

[00:01:31] Jeremi: Professor Sarah Coleman is a historian of 20th century America. She teaches, uh, at Texas state university. Her research focuses on immigration, as I said, on race and civil rights in the United States. She is a former advisor to now former president, uh, Biden, though. She worked for him when he was vice president Biden, and she’s the author of a book that we profiled on the podcast about a year and a half ago that I encourage all of our listeners who have not yet read it to go out and read it.

It also makes a wonderful gift for friends. The book is entitled The Walls Within. The Politics of Immigration in Modern America, and it really offers, I think, the best political history of American immigration lawmaking, really from, uh, the time of Bill Clinton, uh, to the recent few years, uh, really provides the background, I think, that everyone needs to understand our current moment.

Before we get into our discussion, uh, with Sarah Coleman, we have, of course, Mr. Zachary’s scene setting poem. Uh, Zachary, what’s the title of your poem today?

[00:02:33] Zachary: The

Return to Lady Liberty.

[00:02:36] Jeremi: Return to Lady Liberty. Oh, if only we could.

Let’s hear it.

[00:02:42] Zachary: At the sea washed sunset gate I saw, The harbor in the salty mist, Unfold itself as once it did, To Jacob with his muskrat hat, And Mina in her hungry shawl, Storm tossed on tired shores, The poor and yearning stood, As then I stood, Fairy tossed at Liberty Gate.

As now I wait to see what my country makes of me and what she makes of this, the immigrant bliss. Must it disappear? Need we be doomed to lose this memory? Does everyone forget their history? Ask not what your country can do, ask what it has done. She has made for me and my father, the immigrant son, a place in her behemoth heart, a promise she has held.

Must now the Colossus be felled.

[00:03:33] Jeremi: Hmm. I like how you blended together, uh, Emma Lazarus and John F. Kennedy and our own family history there, Zachary. That was quite the collage you put together.

[00:03:45] Zachary: Thank you.

[00:03:46] Jeremi: What’s

the, uh, message of your poem?

[00:03:50] Zachary: Well, my poem is really about, um, what I think has been a question for almost every generation of Americans, uh, since the Statue of Liberty was erected and before, which is to what extent can we really say that we have lived up to the promises that are etched on the Statue of Liberty to take in the tired and the hungry and the poor.

Um, and I think the answer is something that’s not just like a national question or a question of national identity, but also a personal one for pretty much everyone in this country. Um, and it’s one that I think all of us have probably been asking ourselves, uh, in the wake of new immigration orders and what seems to be, uh, A new threat to immigration.

[00:04:33] Jeremi: That’s very powerful, Zachary. Uh, Sarah, do you think that’s, is that the right premise to start with? Are we in jeopardy of abandoning a set of values or, or are we in a place that’s similar to our past?

[00:04:47] Dr. Sarah Coleman: So I think, you know, I think the poem is really evocative and I think one of the things that, that is right, this question, I think one of the big executive orders questions a fundamental sort of You know, a constitutional right that we have in this United States, which is birthright citizenship, right?

Um, so it’s been in place. It’s part of the 14th amendment, right? And Trump is sort of using executive order to basically suggest that he can cancel, um, what is part of the constitution guaranteeing citizenship, uh, to those born in the United States. Um, so I do think we’re at a sort of a fundamental moment where if this were to succeed, and I think there’s a lot of questions about that, if right.

Um, that we could be facing a sort of fundamentally different direction.

[00:05:33] Jeremi: Right. And of course, um, birthright citizenship is in the 14th amendment because it was a way of guaranteeing citizenship for all former enslaved people rather than having to adjudicate which of them were citizens or not. The Republican position at the time was that All of those who were born in the United States, whether they were here of their free volition or not, they were now citizens entitled to rights of citizenship that they didn’t have, of course, when when they were slaves.

How important has that been? And why has it been so important for immigration? Since that time, since the 14th amendment,

[00:06:12] Dr. Sarah Coleman: I think the 14th amendment has always been important in immigration, right? It is always sort of provided a fundamental path for sort of Children of immigrants to be U. S. Citizens. Um, I think one of the things that’s interesting about the 14th amendment and this sort of policy is that, you know, People do not necessarily move to the United States, right?

It’s not a driver. The 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship hasn’t traditionally been a driver of why people move to the United States, right? People historically and today have always moved for either economic opportunity or seeking refuge from sort of a volatile, um, or sort of violence situation, right?

It is not necessarily, and this has historically been true and is true today, right? this concept of birthright citizenship for their children is not something that is often sort of the motivation for people, but people move for these other reasons and then they have children in the United States as one does in life have children.

[00:07:11] Jeremi: But what it does do is it means that regardless of the status of the parents, the person born in the United States, uh, is a citizen. So my father had become a citizen, even though he was an immigrant from India at the time I was born. But if he hadn’t been a citizen, it wouldn’t have mattered. I was born in New York City, I would be an American citizen just as someone who was a descendant from someone from the Mayflower would be a citizen, right?

[00:07:38] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Yes. And the only sort of caveat that’s cut out is it’s those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning basically children of diplomats are the only carve out from that sort of 14th Amendment notion of birthright citizenship.

[00:07:51] Jeremi: I’m glad you brought that up because as I understand it and as I read the executive order, which does seem to be patently unconstitutional, uh, because it seems to run directly against the 14th amendment and all the jurisprudence since then, the case that it looks like the Trump administration is trying to make is that those who are in the country illegally, or not with legal permanent status, that they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

And so therefore, that doesn’t apply to them, that they’re like diplomats. Is there any precedent for that argument?

[00:08:25] Dr. Sarah Coleman: You know, I think this, uh, this case is on very, uh, shaky constitutional ground. Um, and I think, you know, already 18 states and two cities, San Francisco and Washington, D. C. have challenged the order, um, in the federal district in Massachusetts.

Um, and, There’s a second lawsuit in the Western District of Washington, um, for four other states. And I think it, you know, I think this will very likely face a very shaky path, right? I think I expect it within probably two weeks. I think I forget the exact effective date they put probably three or four weeks from now.

[00:08:58] Jeremi: 30

days from the signing. So 30 days from January 20th.

[00:09:02] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Yeah. So I would expect them to stay the executive order. Within a few weeks, um, and then it will be appealed, uh, to the first circuit. And then I assume it’ll be taken up by the Supreme court.

[00:09:13] Jeremi: Gotcha. Gotcha.

Zachary,

[00:09:15] Zachary: why do you think it is that the Trump administration has chosen this aspect of the 14th amendment as one of its first targets when it comes to its proposed changes to immigration law?

[00:09:27] Dr. Sarah Coleman: So I, I think it’s a political move. I think the route, the, um, Realistically, it’s pretty unlikely to survive all these legal challenges, but I think politically it signals to their base that this is, that they’re working on this issue and that this is sort of the, they’re sort of delivering an item that their base has asked for, right?

And it’s particularly targeting a group, um, that it’s, their base is not a fan of, right? They, they’re sort of this idea of someone who’s, you know, comes to the United, who’s. You know, whose parents are immigrants, lives in the United States, but isn’t truly quote unquote American

in their mind.

[00:10:07] Jeremi: And, and why are they targeting that?

I mean, do they believe that those are people who are actually problematic? Is there any evidence that that profile is a problematic profile in terms of crime or in terms of delinquency of one kind or another?

[00:10:23] Dr. Sarah Coleman: No, we actually know that levels of crime and sort of delinquency are lower days.

Statistically, data has shown us that are lower among immigrant communities than they are at the population, uh, writ large, right? So, but that’s not the narrative that sells, right? I think we’ve seen across. You can see this in his inaugural address, right? The politics of fear plays out and that sort of fear mongering that you see the trump Sort of administration pumping out on day one is sort of part of their game plan.

[00:10:55] Jeremi: And, and I guess as a historian, what I struggle to make sense of Sarah is not the presence of fear mongering and not the demagoguery surrounding this. This has a long history. We could talk about the 1924 anti immigration legislation. There’s all, there’s a long history of this, but it does seem to be particularly shrill and militarized.

Now, is that true? First of all, relative to the past and second, why is that?

[00:11:21] Dr. Sarah Coleman: I think it’s definitely shrill. I think anti immigration And anti immigration politics and anti immigration policies sort of go hand in hand, and they sort of go through waves, right? And so, you know, the big immigration waves that you just mentioned around sort of leading up to the 1924 Immigration Act, right?

We saw this sort of nativist vitriol Incredibly strong through groups like the Immigration Restriction League and sort of these Boston Brahmins who sort of pumped this sort of language about, about immigrants and the sort of the threats they were you sort of using eugenics arguments from that were very popular at the time period.

And I think in the wake of the civil rights movement, right, we saw some of the language that was like acceptable in, in, in our political realm change, right? And some of that sort of true hard nativist language that we, So saw in the early 20th century, sort of gets stripped out, you know, of sort of the political debate during the 70s, 80s, early 90s.

And that kind of language, while it’s still anti immigrant, it’s sort of phrased differently, right? You could call it code words, you could call it Sort of, uh, sort of phrased in different ways, like immigrants are quoted burden on our state and society or sort of that, but what we’ve seen sort of reemerged, I would say more around 2010 and it sort of amplified with Trump is a return to this sort of what you called shrill, right?

I could say more aggressively racist. sort of language,

[00:12:54] Jeremi: and again, why do you think that’s resonating? Why is it working at least in an electoral context for him?

[00:13:02] Dr. Sarah Coleman: I think it works because a lot of Trump supporters think that the opportunities that they are no longer sort of accustomed to getting access to are cut off and they’re blaming it on those who look different than them.

[00:13:17] Jeremi: Right. No, I think that’s actually very well said and very fairly said. These are people who feel that they’re. There’s too much competition and that others, new arrivals are getting access to resources they’re not getting access to, getting access to seats at universities, for example, that their kids can’t get, get access to.

We hear that a lot at the University of Texas and your university and many others. Of course, the statistics show otherwise though, right? In fact, we have a labor shortage in our country, don’t we?

[00:13:46] Dr. Sarah Coleman: We have a labor shortage in this country, right? And so it’s interesting to see. Right. Is that a lot of the sort of people who, you know, might have voted for Trump when it comes to reality that they might not have the labor that they need will be in a tough position, right?

[00:14:03] Jeremi: Right. Zachary?

[00:14:06] Zachary: How likely do you think Uh, these orders are to have a major impact on the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Um, and if they were to have a large impact on undocumented immigrants in the United States, uh, in terms of overall numbers, what kind of economic impact might that have?

[00:14:28] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Right. So I think there’s two things to think about, which is one is we’re in a, um, the overall, you know, Transcription by CastingWords We have about a 12 million, um, roughly 12 million, uh, people as the size of the undocumented population in the United States. I mean, it sort of fluctuates and we don’t have total correct numbers on everything, but that’s sort of generally what the assumption is around.

Um, and so I think part of what’s interesting is like these executive orders, some of them, right, are about the border and the border sealing and some are about, um, internal enforcement. On the border sealing ones, you know, we have been since June of last year, we’ve seen a massive drop already in, um, in border encounters.

Right. So do I think these executive orders will keep these numbers pretty low? Yes. Right. But we’ve seen a massive drop since Biden’s orders in June. Um, so I think it won’t, won’t Necessarily dropped to nothing. But I think it will sort of stay or potentially lessen sort of those daily encounters. Um, for example, like, as you may know that part of what he did on day one is shut down CVP one, which is the app that allows migrants to schedule appointments, um, to gain entry into the U.

S. As part of an asylum request, right? And that sort of about 900, 000 people have entered the country using that app from its launch. Mhm. In early 2024, right? So there’s a number where I could see that number officially going down, but that doesn’t mean that those people aren’t going to cross. They’re just not going to use the process through CBP one anymore.

Um, so I think that will go down a little bit. I think, um, on internal enforcement, I think there will be more internal enforcement in the United States, and I think that could, uh, start to play a larger role in shifting that, that much larger 12 million number.

[00:16:24] Jeremi: We’ve talked about the, um, birthright citizenship executive order, uh, in particular, uh, another one of the executive orders was to declare a national emergency at the southern border.

What, what does that mean, Sarah?

[00:16:39] Dr. Sarah Coleman: So it allows him to circumvent Congress. So it does two things. The first thing it allows him to circumvent Congress and sort of unlock federal funding for border wall construction and other enforcement efforts, right? So this one is, it sort of allows him access to this additional pot of money.

Um, the other is that if he gave it part of that order is that he gives the military an explicit role in immigration enforcement. In fact, it orders the defense department to come up with a plan for quote unquote sealing the border. Right now this will be interesting legally because it will likely sort of clash.

We have, you know, an 1870s law that sort of limits the use of regular troops for domestic domestic policing, right? So this was one area that might also get some legal challenges, but he’s already moved this afternoon, right? That’s The Department of Defense, uh, was announced that they were already sending, um, 1, 500 active duty military to the southern border, right?

So I think that is sort of, um, it’s going to be an influence for sure. Um, that’s sort of, that’s what that means. That national emergency does two things. One is about funding and one is actually about boots on the ground.

[00:17:49] Jeremi: Right, but it does still raise a question about the Posse Comitatus Act, which is what you’re referring to, uh, which is a reconstruction act, an 1878 act that explicitly prohibited the use of the U.

S. military for domestic purposes. Is there a case to be made that doing what he’s doing is not for domestic purposes?

[00:18:12] Dr. Sarah Coleman: And I think that’s a, I mean, I actually think that he might, this might be one area he might successfully, right? I think given the sort of role of the southern border, right, he could argue it’s a sort of international sort of concern.

[00:18:26] Jeremi: I see. I see. Is that traditionally how we’ve thought of immigration? Have we used the U. S. military to deal with immigration issues in the past?

[00:18:35] Dr. Sarah Coleman: The US military is generally in the generally in historically, we have not used the US military in this sort of more border enforcement effort, right? We have, particularly over time, it’s changed, right?

INS or border patrol or CBP or ice, depending on what name you want to call it at this moment, generally has been right. And over time, it changes, um, has been sort of really functionary in Uh, towards that. And we’re also seeing DHS has announced earlier today, and I didn’t deeply read into this, um, that they’re allowing, um, sort of some other parts of DOJ and DHS to begin to do more with, um, immigration enforcement, including U.

S. Marshals Service, right? So I think we’ll start to see sort of a tapping of resources, but the military generally has not deeply been involved in this.

[00:19:24] Jeremi: Gotcha. Gotcha. I mean, what’s striking to me, Sarah, watching these events the last couple of days, I think many things are striking to me about this, but as I think about these events and I think about your book, which is such a detailed, fine grained analysis of these issues in prior decades.

I mean, in your book, Congress is in some ways the central actor. Okay. And. This is all happening, not even with consultation of Congress. As far as I understand it, no one in Congress, even members of Trump’s own party, knew or understood the details of what these orders contain. Most people, most members of Congress are reading these orders for the first time, as you and I are, in the New York Times or the Washington Post or wherever else.

So, is, is, are we in a new space here? Has he, has he invented a new way of making immigration policy?

[00:20:18] Dr. Sarah Coleman: So he’s taking sort of a tool, like this tool of executive action, and he’s definitely amplifying, but I wouldn’t say he’s the first, right? I think one of the things that I stress throughout my book, right, is that we have had congressional inaction for so many years, and what we start to see over time Is that presidents begin to turn to other tools?

For example, President Obama, right, fails to get comprehensive immigration reform passed in 2011 and 2012, right? And he turns to DACA and DACA is an executive action, right? And he turns to DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, right? So I think he’s not the first president to use executive orders in this area.

Um, but he’s certainly amplifying the sort of disregard for the constitution and sort of the legal process generally, um, in his use of executive orders in this space,

[00:21:13] Jeremi: Zachary,

[00:21:15] Zachary: how, what is the danger you think of? of relying on executive orders for making immigration policy? And why do you think Congress has been so unable to make long lasting, uh, legislative change when it comes to immigration?

[00:21:32] Dr. Sarah Coleman: So I think the danger of using executive action is that it is very much, um, a piecemeal strategy, right? And I think that’s the danger. It’s sort of what we’ve seen in our immigration policy over the last 20 years is that it’s piecemeal and it doesn’t necessarily, parts don’t make sense with other parts, right?

And so I think when you have actions on one section, but then you change the other way, like within an administration, you can have conflicting policies, right? That sort of both push for crackdowns, but also sort of don’t acknowledge the labor needs of the United States, right? Um, so I think that is sort of that use of executive action is, is.

It’s problematic because it creates piecemeal policy. I also think the use of executive action is problematic for what you saw, which is that, you know, something happens one day, right? And then four days later it’s reversed. Like for example, in this, the Trump’s first term, right, he put into place a policy called the Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP.

It’s more locally known as the Remain in Mexico program, right? Which forces certain migrants to wait in Mexico while an American immigration judge decides their case. was challenged legally. Um, and when sort of when started to make its way through the court system, then Biden comes in, Biden’s decides that he’s going to get rid of that program, right?

The legal challenge sort of, sort of ends at that moment. It dies for three years and then Trump reinstates it. Right. The day number two in office, it’s just sort of like a zigzag policy that leaves all these people’s livelihoods sort of back and forth at the whim of one day, right? We have people who have been refugees who have been cleared to enter the United States, right?

Have the program suddenly been suspended, right? And these are people who have been sort of already approved for entry into the United States and gone through a two year vetting program overseas. Right. And I think that sort of executive action piecemeal process leads to confusion and sort of conflicting policies and an incoherence to us policy.

[00:23:47] Jeremi: It certainly seems we’re in that space right now. Another recent development, not necessarily an executive order, has been essentially cancelling access to the country for refugees, including people who are undeniably political refugees. So I guess that would include people fleeing Vladimir Putin and fleeing mistreatment as Uyghurs in China, etc.

With it, with or without precedent. I mean, we do tend to think of ourselves as a country that has at least tried to welcome refugees, uh, in the past,

[00:24:22] Dr. Sarah Coleman: right? And I think this gets back to Zachary’s poem at the beginning, right? Just like we think of birthright citizenship as sort of something fundamental or constitutional, right?

Are we a country that accepts refugees, right? Historically, we have been, and I think many people would argue that’s part of who our American identity is. Right. And I think that’s, in some ways, what’s really challenging. And that’s what I was thinking about when I was thinking about Zachary’s poem at the beginning, right?

What is our American identity? And to, for many, I would, I would believe, right, that refugees and being, right, being a safe haven for those, sort of who are providing a safe haven for those who are being fleeing persecution around the world is is part of that American identity.

[00:25:09] Jeremi: Right, right. That’s at least the story we tell ourselves.

Of course, we haven’t always been open to all refugees, but it is quite striking to think that As of today, we might be accepting zero refugees. Full stop. Um, where do you think we go from here? Sarah? I know it’s not really a fair question because we’re historians. We know the past, not the future, but, um, it, it seems such a confusing moment in some ways.

Where do you think we’re, we’re going?

[00:25:37] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Well, I think we’re going to sort of end up in a place where some of this is definitely going to be challenged legally, right? I think there’s going to be a challenge to. The birthright citizenship, I think there might be some challenges to some of the border sealing.

Right. Um, Mexico, for example, also has to play a role in deciding whether they want to be a part of the migrant protection protocols or the remain in Mexico program. Right. So we’re going to see some of this play out. Um, and, and be challenged. I think one of the things that will be interesting to me, and this comes back to your earlier sort of question about, Refugee resettlement is these things go in waves, right?

And some, it’ll be interesting to see how far Trump’s executive actions and, um, forced removal programs go before people start to understand the absolute way in which immigrants are essential to daily life in the United States. Right? At what point do people sort of have that realization, and how far do we have to go down that path?

[00:26:39] Jeremi: I mean, it would seem to me that if, as Trump promises, deportations are starting while we speak, people are going to feel the effects of this pretty immediately, wouldn’t they?

[00:26:50] Dr. Sarah Coleman: I think people will in certain parts of the country, right? Um, I think, you know, he particularly sort of begins to, sort of, one of the things he outlined today is that ICE.

can begin enforcement in sensitive areas such as schools and churches, right? I think when we start to see the images of children being pulled out of schools and ICE raids on churches, I think if they go that direction, people will start to, you know, it’ll open some people’s eyes to what he actually means.

[00:27:17] Jeremi: Right, right. And I was also thinking of just the reality of You know, trying to run a restaurant or have

 

[00:27:25] Jeremi: Work done on your house and things of that sort where we’re already, at least in cities like Austin, the labor supply is already deficient, and much of it is built upon low cost immigrant labor.

And if that labor disappears, it’s hard to understand how these businesses would still operate.

[00:27:44] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Yeah. And I think in certain areas of the country, we’ll start to feel it earlier than others. Right. And I think the question is how long that will take.

[00:27:50] Jeremi: Right. Right. Zachary, is this a topic, uh, immigration and these executive orders, is this something that, um, young people, your generation of college students are paying attention to?

Is it an issue that’s motivating discussion and concern? Or is it, is it lost in the, in the swirl of everything else that’s going on?

[00:28:11] Zachary: I do think it’s an issue that young people care deeply about. If, if not simply because they have many friends who have faced challenges when it comes to immigration enforcement, or they know people who, who feel at risk because of these changes in immigration policy.

Um, I think it’s an issue people care deeply about. Um, and I think it’s also the rare issue in which, uh, local action, uh, has been critical, um, in. In the response to these executive orders and also in which local action will be critical to their enforcement, um, these kinds of raids that the Trump administration has raised the specter of can have must happen at a local level, um, and often require the cooperation of local officials.

And similarly, the efforts that many local leaders and state leaders have announced to try and resist, uh, immigration orders require. Uh, cooperation from local governments and, and citizens.

[00:29:12] Jeremi: Sarah, the Trump administration has, has threatened to prosecute local officials who, as Zachary just described, try to counteract these efforts.

Is there a basis for that? Is there a history of the federal government suing mayors and city council people for trying to create sanctuary cities?

[00:29:30] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Right. So there is this back and forth around the question of sanctuary cities, right? This has obviously been a touch point before. Um, and we also see this more broadly, right?

That sort of interesting case law around this actually relates to the Brady Act. Um, and Jeremy, feel free to jump in if you want to, you probably know more about this than I do, right? But sort of the, around the question of gun control, right? And whether there was constitutional authority to command state and locals to do federal law, right?

There are some cases around that, that sort of limited the scope of that. So it’ll be interesting to see to what extent sort of that conversation. Those those that case law around gun control sort of comes to play at this moment. Um, there are certainly jurisdictions that have in the past voluntarily through memorandums of understanding participated in something called the 287 G program, which is sort of a deputization of state and local law enforcement.

But there are certainly perhaps even more jurisdictions, right, that have, um, have sort of really limited. that sort of, uh, cooperation with ICE. Um, and so we will see, um, we will see this play out. And it’ll be interesting to see sort of where, where the courts come down.

[00:30:44] Jeremi: Right, right. Yeah. Austin, Texas is a great example, uh, of that where, um, this, the state of Texas did, uh, deputize under that program, I believe, uh, DPS, the Department of Public Safety to act with and on behalf of ICE.

And then the, the city of Austin refused to cooperate. And so, um, police in Austin were not part of that. This was during the first Trump administration, and it certainly limited the ability of ICE to conduct as many raids as it wanted to conduct in the city. It will be interesting to see how that would play out in this situation.

I think the, the points of view of the city and the state and the federal government have not changed. The question is, uh, who, who would claim jurisdiction and in what ways?

[00:31:26] Dr. Sarah Coleman: And like what federal statute could they charge the cities with?

[00:31:31] Jeremi: Yeah, it’s hard to

[00:31:32] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Hard to come up with what exactly that would be.

[00:31:35] Jeremi: Yeah, and it’s hard to imagine, though I guess not inconceivable in the world we’re in now of city officials being potentially arrested, certainly being intimidated, that that could backfire too.

It’s, it’s a, it’s, it’s a, it’s a case study in the difficulties of federalism, it seems to me also.

[00:31:54] Dr. Sarah Coleman: I’m really glad Jeremy brought up that word intimidated, right? Because I think so often we focus on, you know, earlier we spoke about what’s probably going to be the numbers impact of like the border shut down or the internal enforcement, right?

And, and some of it is about like sheer enforcement, right? But there’s a huge element of intimidation and fear that can have unprecedented impacts on these numbers, right? So part of it is about what he says he’s going to do versus what he actually does. Right. And I think that we are already seeing that there are communities around, around this country that are living in fear.

Right. That are in thinking about whether or not to send their kids to school, you know, over the next months to come, whether they’re going to sort of go to work. Right. That sort of impact. And that sort of intimidation is incredibly important and shouldn’t be underplayed.

[00:32:41] Jeremi: Absolutely. I, I have to say that I’ve, I’ve seen evidence of this already, uh, just since the, uh, November 2024 election.

I’ve had three conversations with different graduate students at, at our university, three different PhD students who are foreign students who are quite concerned about their future. Um, and our university, I’m sure your university did this. I think most universities did. They warned foreign students to make sure they were back in the United States before Trump’s inauguration, not knowing, you know, what kind of things would happen at the border.

Um, I, I think our students on student visas are going to be fine, but it’s your point, Sarah, that the fear that’s been created has already affected their psychological well being. And their sense of stability and security, uh, in the United States. And that’s, that’s a, that’s a really terrible thing, it seems to me.

Uh, last question for you, Zachary. Um, do you see, um, young people organizing around this as an issue to, to politically? Get involved with do you see new activism around around this issue? I know sarah’s involved with that, but uh, do you see this? uh among students

[00:33:56] Zachary: Yes, I think so from what I can tell this has been something that people have Organized around again again.

I think there’s a quality uh to these kinds of policy changes, um That really affect individuals across the country that makes it particularly, uh, motivating for those who are looking to sort of make a difference in politics or those who maybe have never been involved in politics before, uh, you know, This sort of feeling like someone in your community, uh, their place in their community, in your community might be under threat, I think, um, is, is, is one of the strongest things that can motivate people to get involved.

[00:34:34] Jeremi: And, and Sarah, our last question for you, do you think that activism can make a difference? Can it be one of the things, citizen activism, that reverses or limits some of the harm in, in these executive orders?

[00:34:48] Dr. Sarah Coleman: For sure. I think it’s important. I think you can even see this in the first Trump administration.

Think about all the people at airports, right? When they started to sort of roll out the restriction on the sort of, um, on, on people arriving from certain countries, right? I think you see that played out, uh, significantly there. I think activism around state, uh, and local, um, internal enforcement can certainly play a role, right?

I think that’s one place where we will see, we have seen traditionally, and we will continue to see activism play an important sort of counterbalance to this type of action.

[00:35:23] Jeremi: Right,

right. And, and I just want to underline as we close, Sarah, a point you make in your book and that you’ve made so well tonight, you know, immigration policy goes in waves, as you’ve said.

And so, um, pushing, when someone pushes one way, there, there is a lot of precedent for that to trigger a push in the other direction. And I think, uh, those who are concerned, as certainly I am, and you and Zachary are, uh, about restrictions on refugees, about, uh, mistreatment of people at the border, about all sorts of issues that honestly are not Part should not be partisan issues.

I think they’re humane issues. They’re fundamentally issues about democracy not being a Democrat or a Republican But those of us who care about these issues and have a historical awareness of these issues I think it’s important to know that this this is where public activism speaking out raising awareness Can indeed have effect, effect on courts, effect on members of Congress, on local communities.

Immigration policy is not just made by the president or the Supreme Court. And I think it’s important we recognize that what keeps our democracy vibrant is that we continue to be activists and scholars and thinkers. and actors on these issues. So I think there’s a lot for us to build on there. Um, Sarah, you really helped to educate us, at least on putting this current moment in some historical perspective.

I’m sure we’ll come back to you and want to talk to you some more in coming weeks, because I’m sure there’ll be more to talk about. In fact, so

[00:36:52] Dr. Sarah Coleman: who knows

what the next 48 hours bring?

[00:36:55] Jeremi: Who knows? Uh, professor, uh, Sarah Coleman, thank you so much for joining us today.

[00:37:00] Dr. Sarah Coleman: Thank you so much for having me.

[00:37:02] Jeremi: Zachary, thank you for your, uh, moving, uh, and really, um, stunning poem tonight that really captured so much of this.

And thank you most of all to our loyal listeners for joining us for this week and for reading our Substack and for continuing to care about democracy and its history as well as its present and future. Uh, thank you for joining us for this episode of This is Democracy.

[00:37:35] Intro/Outro: This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio

and the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and

recorded by Harris Codini. Stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find This Is Democracy on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

See you next time.