Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

Background

Before its revocation, the 2017 executive order had a pronounced impact on both immigration law and enforcement policy in the United States. It mandated the construction of a "physical wall" along the U.S.-Mexico border, bolstered the number of Border Patrol agents, and directed agencies to engage in the expedited deportation of individuals apprehended at or near the southern border. The order particularly emphasized the end of "catch and release," wherein apprehended migrants were previously allowed to wait for immigration hearings within the U.S., instead advocating for their detention or prompt deportation. This shift in policy resulted in a marked increase in the resources and infrastructure devoted to border security and detention facilities, with substantial federal funds funneled toward these developments. Additionally, it underscored cooperation between federal, state, and local enforcement agencies for more rigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

Operational adjustments followed the order’s directives, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection significantly expanding their physical and personnel presence along the southern border. Agencies involved in enforcement, including the Department of Homeland Security, were encouraged to prioritize construction projects aimed at fortifying border control. Facilities for detaining migrants were rapidly established and expanded, directly impacting asylum seekers and individuals crossing without documentation. Moreover, the administrative procedures linked to asylum claims and credible fear determinations were streamlined and subjected to tightened scrutiny, ensuring that more swift decisions were made regarding the deportability of apprehended individuals. These actions effectively altered the landscape of immigration enforcement by shortening response times and increasing deportation proceedings.

Another significant outcome of the order was its effect on federal-state partnerships in immigration enforcement. By invoking Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the executive order facilitated agreements that deputized state and local law enforcement officers to perform the functions of federal immigration agents. This resulted in varying levels of cooperation across different jurisdictions, as some localities embraced the directive, while others declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions in opposition. While the federal government sought increased participation from states in enforcing immigration laws, the response was a patchwork of compliance and resistance that reflected broader societal divisions on immigration issues. This interaction ultimately exemplified the complex, often contentious relationship between federal mandates and local governance.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the border security executive order by President Biden on February 2, 2021, coincided with a broader shift in U.S. immigration policy towards a more humanitarian and less punitive approach. This decision was emblematic of a repudiation of the previous administration’s hardline stance on immigration, reflecting a change in ideology to valuing migrant rights and addressing root causes of migration. Biden’s administration aimed to realign immigration enforcement with principles of fairness and compassion, reversing policies that were viewed as overly harsh and damaging to communities both locally and internationally. It marked a strategic pivot towards comprehensive immigration reform, seeking to overhaul existing policies that were considered exclusionary and unfeasible in addressing modern migration challenges.

An important element motivating the revocation was the desire to foster improved diplomatic relations and cooperative frameworks with Latin American countries. The Trump administration's emphasis on deterrence, including the proposed construction of a border wall, had strained relations with Mexico and other neighboring nations. By rescinding the order, the Biden administration signaled its interest in collaborative approaches aimed at addressing root causes of migration, such as violence and economic instability, while simultaneously mending international partnerships. This diplomatic priority underscored a shift in the United States' global stance on migration, emphasizing cooperation over isolation.

Moreover, the executive order's rescission aligned with domestic calls for racial equity and justice, themes particularly resonant in the Biden administration’s agenda. Critics of the prior immigration enforcement policies had argued that they disproportionately targeted communities of color, subjecting migrants to undue hardships and fostering racial discrimination. Revoking the order was an attempt to dismantle systems that inadvertently perpetuated racial injustice and to establish a more inclusive immigration framework that recognized the contributions of immigrants to American society. The intention was to transform immigration policy into one that integrates and supports, rather than alienates and punishes.

In addition, by revoking the order, the Biden administration sought to address humanitarian concerns related to the treatment of migrants at the border. During the Trump years, detention conditions often led to international condemnation and domestic controversy due to perceived violations of human rights. The new administration aimed to reinstitute protections for asylum seekers and ensure due process in immigration proceedings, reflecting a shift back towards humanitarian principles in treatment and processing of individuals at the border. The revocation was therefore deeply intertwined with efforts to establish humane and legally sound immigration policies that uphold America’s commitments to international human rights statutes.

Winners

One significant beneficiary of the revocation are immigrant advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Human Rights Watch, which have long campaigned against the harsh measures imposed under the executive order. These groups stand to gain increased governmental and societal support for their ongoing efforts to promote immigrant rights and to overhaul immigration laws. The ability to direct resources away from combating immediate enforcement actions towards long-term advocacy and policy development is a significant boost for these organizations.

Communities along the U.S.-Mexico border have also likely benefited from the halt in construction and fortification projects associated with the wall's expansion. These projects often intersected with local lands and ecosystems, disrupting local economies and environments. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club may find more freedom to protect sensitive habitats that straddle both sides of the border, aligning their conservation goals with reduced construction activities. Additionally, local businesses and residents who rely on cross-border trade and visitation have welcomed a reduction in the physical barriers that once threatened to isolate communities.

Further, immigrant communities across the United States can potentially experience a reprieve in the fear and anxiety that had characterized much of the Trump administration's approach to border security and immigration enforcement. With the rollback of policies that prioritized deportation and detention, many undocumented immigrants and their families may feel a heightened sense of security, allowing them to engage more openly with government services and community activities without the constant threat of removal looming over their daily lives. This shift presents an opportunity for these communities to exercise greater civic participation and contribute actively to the American sociopolitical landscape.

Losers

Private contractors and construction companies that were engaged in the building of physical barriers along the border are among the most immediate losers from the policy reversal. Companies such as Fisher Sand & Gravel Co., which won contracts worth hundreds of millions for border wall construction, faced disruptions as the Biden administration redirected or canceled contracts associated with the order. These companies, streamlined for government infrastructure projects, may now have to pivot toward alternative projects or geographical markets, potentially affecting their financial viability.

For some factions within the law enforcement community, particularly those engaged in immigration enforcement, the revocation of the order represents a scaling down of resources and a shift in focus that impacts operating procedures. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, for example, might see reductions in funding and staffing for certain enforcement operations that were previously prioritized. This realignment may challenge these agencies to balance day-to-day border management duties with renewed humanitarian and asylum processing requirements, potentially leading to concerns about fulfilling new mandates with altered resources and approaches.

Politically, groups that advocated for stringent immigration policies, including certain conservative factions, perceive the revocation as a setback to maintaining a robust national security posture. Organizations such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which pushed for more restrictive border policies, may find themselves pushing back against policy trends that lean towards leniency and open borders. This shift requires these interest groups to reconsider their advocacy strategies and potentially intensify efforts to influence future immigration debates both in public discourse and legislative circles.