Kelly Lytle-Hernández, historian: ‘Immigration control is the perfect tool for an autocrat like Trump’

The team led by historian Kelly Lytle-Hernández at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is finalizing an investigation that will reveal the extent of the U.S. deportation machine. This system has been manipulated by politicians across the political spectrum. It has targeted various nationalities over the decades, adapting to the needs of those in power.

The academic, a leading expert on race and immigration issues in the United States, says that since the late 19th century, 58 million people have been deported — a number surpassing the current population of Argentina, Canada, or Spain. She argues that this punitive approach to immigration policy disproportionately affects non-white individuals, with 96% of deportees ending up in Mexico and other countries with mixed-race populations.

Donald Trump has campaigned on a pledge to strengthen this deportation machine. Lytle-Hernández — the winner of the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship in 2019 — says that regardless of who wins on November 5, the U.S. immigration policy will be continued. However, she warns that a second Republican administration poses a significant threat to the freedoms of Americans.

Question. As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are pledging a tough stance on border security.

Answer. There seems to be a consensus between both parties on immigration control. Obviously, Trump is much more bombastic in his declarations, saying that he will unleash the largest deportation campaign in the U.S., which could potentially involve mass detention camps, something that his team has mentioned. That said, the Harris campaign has also talked about deeper enforcement of immigration laws. So whoever wins, we are in store for an intensification of an immigration law enforcement, which will be focused on the southern border and almost exclusively impact non-white people trying to enter or remain in the United States.

Q. Harris has promised to keep the ban on asylum requests. Do you see this as a tipping point for the Democratic Party?

A. No. Unfortunately, my perspective on American history and the formation of our contemporary politics around immigration is very pessimistic, consistent with our past. One thing people need to understand is that the foundational immigration law, from 1952, is a regressive legislation designed to retain laws passed in the 1920s. We’ve amended it several times and in significant ways, in particular around admission. But enforcement, deportations and punishments have only become more severe over time, especially when you understand that deportation operates as a wing of the system of mass incarceration. In my opinion, what we are seeing is an unfortunate continuity.

The asylum issue is a little different due to the large number of people requesting it at the border. For a long time, the story of the U.S.-Mexico border was about Mexicans showing up in the United States, very few of whom made claims to asylum, so they didn’t push the United States on that issue. The folks who are now arriving are pushing the United States on the issue, and forced a response.

Q. Are you surprised that a majority of Americans support the mass deportation operation that Trump has promised?

A. No. To a large extent, our immigration regime was constructed by southerners who took a very hard stand in the 20th century that aligned with the Jim Crow South and wanted to see non-white immigrants excluded from this country. That Southern power was used in Congress to block efforts to moderate these laws, which were designed to make entry extraordinarily difficult for Mexicans in particular. The 20th century is a story largely of the Mexican immigration. Mexicans are a mixed race, Indigenous and part Black, as opposed to Canadians, who are seen as another white settler, British nation.

During the 20th century, a set of rules was constructed that made it very difficult for the working class and impoverished folks to cross the border. Now they’re coming from Haiti, Sudan, Venezuela and Central America. When we talk about asylum, it is important to see the difference in the programs that have been established for the arrival of Ukrainians to the United States, opposed to Haitians and Afghans. It’s the perfect example of how our regime prioritizes and values some populations over others. This is what has happened in the last three years. It’s written into our DNA that this is how we operate our immigration system.

Q. You’ve written extensively about the 1954 Operation Wetback, which inspired Trump. How do you envision a second Trump presidency?

A. I think we’re going to see more of the same if you compare it to the long arc of American history. What he’s been promising for almost 10 years, and what he can do now that he has experience, is quite frightening. I’m concerned about what is to come. Just the mention of massive immigration detention camps, where children are separated from their families with complete impunity, something that, it must be said, has been going on for decades. It’s not new, but the way this is being celebrated now is terrifying.

It should also be remembered that within 100 miles of any border, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution [which protects people from government search warrants and seizures] can be limited by the executive power. Immigration control under a new Trump administration is the perfect space for growing an autocratic regime. It is the perfect tool to subordinate and expel targeted populations. That is very worrying.

Q. Why?

A. Because the immigration regime in the United States does not operate under the same rules as other forms of governance, it operates under plenary power. According to a set of Supreme Court rulings in the late 19th century amid the effort to exclude Chinese immigrants from the United States, it was determined that these types of immigrants constituted a national security risk to a white settler nation. And since it’s a security threat, a special prerogative was granted to federal authorities.

There are only three areas where the Constitution does not apply: diplomacy, affairs with Indigenous peoples, and immigration. You can round people up, stick them in detention camps, kick them out by any method you choose. You can target people for any reason, and the protections of the Constitution like due process, protection against torture or indefinite detention do not apply because of those rulings. Those rulings have been moderated over time, but they are what allowed Trump to win his Muslim ban. There’s an extraordinary power in immigration control in the United States that allows an unhinged administration to take it in directions that we may not even be able to imagine yet.

Q. Didn’t the federal courts serve as a barrier to some of Trump’s policies?

A. They slowed them, but Trump’s Muslim ban was eventually approved. They forced some amendments. I’m not sure that we have a judicial firewall around immigration control. Only the mobilization and protests of activists have forced some changes, such as limiting some detentions. So I think it will be the task of organizers and immigrant advocates. Resistance will be very important, of course.

Q. You also specialize in the country’s prison system. What do you make of Kamala Harris’ record as district attorney?

A. Kamala Harris in California, when she was attorney general, was someone that was pushed to take different positions. I suspect that she will not lead reforms to the criminal justice system. First because of her own experience as a prosecutor, which she is leaning into now, and because of the backlash to the movement since the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others. I don’t think that this is a political moment in which she feels she can maneuver, even if she wanted to carry out progressive changes in the system. And it’s interesting because I think that just before the murder of George Floyd, we almost had a consensus between the left and the right on mass incarceration. The right said that it was too expensive and that didn’t work. And the left that it was racist and unfair. But we have seen that consensus disappear.

Q. What would you say to someone who thinks Kamala Harris is radical and extremist?

A. I don’t know. We live in a strange world of fantasies and lies. It’s been repeatedly said that she’s a capitalist, and she was not an extreme prosecutor at all. I don’t know how to make sense of the twisting that is happening around narratives and the willingness to lie, from people like J.D. Vance and others.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition