Over the past four years, the wave of migration affecting the United States has reached unprecedented levels. Millions of people have crossed the border—often without authorization—in search of a new life. As promised, former President Trump signed numerous executive orders aimed at deporting undocumented immigrants, particularly those with criminal records, though not exclusively. Some have questioned the constitutional legitimacy of these actions. I believe, however, that such concerns are unfounded.
The U.S. Constitution is clear: the President is Commander in Chief, responsible for implementing laws and ensuring national security. The use of executive orders to maintain public order is nothing new. Presidents such as Carter, Bush, and Clinton acted with the same authority during emergency situations. Biden did as well, signing 535 executive orders—many of them on immigration—during his term, surpassing even Trump’s record of 472. Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) explicitly grants the President the power to suspend the entry of foreigners if deemed contrary to the national interest.
In recent years, border management has been extremely permissive. In 2021, a historic peak was recorded: 1.7 million illegal entries, according to official CBP (Customs and Border Protection) data. Migrants came not only from Latin America, but also from Europe and even Vietnam. Alongside them, drug seizures—particularly cocaine and fentanyl—increased, and disturbing presences emerged: thousands of members of violent gangs like MS-13, Barrio 18, and Tren de Aragua, the latter linked to Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. The government declared the situation a national crisis and invoked the Enemy Act to proceed with deportations.
On January 20, 2025, Trump signed a new package of executive orders that significantly changed immigration policy. All of Biden’s provisions regarding family reunification and humanitarian protection were revoked. Key changes include:
Zero tolerance for those without a visa: anyone without a valid visa will be deported, regardless of criminal record. Under the previous administration, priority was given to those with prior offenses; now the approach is stricter.
Mandatory registration: starting April 11, all undocumented immigrants aged 14 and older must register on a government platform. Failure to do so could lead to civil and criminal penalties. Parents are responsible for their underage children. The goal is traceability.
Laken Riley Act: the measure mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of serious crimes, especially those causing death or injury. The law is named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old student killed by an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant.
Another highly sensitive issue is the revocation of student visas. Recently, many students have had their visas canceled without apparent reason, even though they had not violated any conditions. Secretary Marco Rubio explained that these students allegedly took part in violent political demonstrations, deemed a threat to public order. Some visas have been reinstated, but the government is working on a new system to address the issue.
A further hot topic is the Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—a permit granted to citizens of countries affected by war, natural disasters, or political emergencies, such as Somalia (1991), Haiti (2010), Syria (2015), and Venezuela (2021). The Trump administration has decided to terminate many TPS programs, arguing that the original conditions no longer apply. The result? Thousands of people forced to leave the country. However, legal challenges from NGOs and state governments have temporarily blocked some deportations. On March 31, a San Francisco judge ordered the Immigration Department to continue accepting TPS applications for Venezuelans, but the executive branch has appealed, claiming sole jurisdiction on the matter.
Finally, we cannot ignore the growing tension toward the legal profession. On April 25, a judge in Wisconsin was arrested for aiding and abetting: he allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant escape from court by providing false information. It’s a strong signal. The administration wants to show that no one is above the law—not even a judge.
We lawyers are involved too. An executive order has increased our responsibility in political asylum cases: if a claim is judged fraudulent, the lawyer could face sanctions. I understand the dismay of many colleagues upon receiving certain emails sent to our firms, advising to “leave the country immediately”—messages actually intended for our clients. Some have even called these communications a return to Nazism. But it would be wise to return to more pragmatic tones, and stop panicking over every little thing.
Certainly, the phrase that struck me the most appeared on the official Immigration Department websites on April 29:
“The days of taking advantage of immigration are over.”
I believe it is unfair to accuse lawyers of fostering illegality. Just like criminal defense attorneys, immigration lawyers work within the law. It is certainly not the profession’s fault that millions of people crossed the border. Our role is to ensure that everyone receives fair legal defense, as guaranteed by the rule of law.
Yes, there are so-called notarios—unlicensed individuals who pose as lawyers and defraud immigrants—but they are not our colleagues.
Defending legality also means defending those who uphold the law.
