In Summary

by Alfredo Cuéllar

I consider myself an independent.

In a bipartisan system, rationality often

leads one to choose the option

that is least damaging to democracy.

I dedicate this article to my wife

and daughter, to whom I wish to offer

broader context and information.

EVIDENCE

I rarely write articles citing specific sources. I do so here to show that these data are public, verifiable, and accessible to all. The sources I cite do not express opinions; they present factual reporting.

The current administration has polarized the electorate, and no one doubts that immigration stands at the center of that divide.

My intention is to present evidence so readers can reach their own conclusions.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Since 1986, the United States has failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. The current system is not the product of a single administration but of decades of legislative neglect, where both parties inherited outdated structures. However, in the last twenty years, deliberate inaction and systematic obstructionism—primarily driven by Republican sectors—have prevented progress toward durable solutions.

In this political vacuum, immigration has been transformed into a tool of power, used to mobilize electoral bases and construct narratives of fear.

POLARIZATION

In today’s deeply polarized climate, much of the conservative discourse places exclusive blame on Democrats for the alleged “chaos” at the border. But a closer examination reveals a more complex reality: punitive Republican policies, the blocking of bipartisan agreements, and the strategic use of the migrant crisis as an electoral weapon have all been decisive in keeping the system dysfunctional.

This article seeks to present a balanced analysis supported by recent facts and historical evidence.

REPUBLICAN POLICIES: Punitive Security and a Narrative of Fear

Republican leaders have long promoted coercive approaches focused more on containment than on comprehensive management of migration flows. Surveys from 2024 and 2025 show that over 80% of Republican voters support expanding border walls and deploying military personnel to the border.

Source: Global Affairs Survey

PROJECT 2025

This emphasis was reflected in Project 2025, a conservative roadmap aiming to reinstate highly restrictive policies such as “Remain in Mexico,” forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico—often in dangerous conditions.

During the campaign, Trump claimed no connection to the plan. Yet upon winning the election, he incorporated its agenda and added even more radical measures.

Source: American Immigration Council

HARDLINE MEASURES AGAINST MIGRANTS

Recent legislation has sought to limit legal immigration, reduce benefits even for lawful permanent residents, and impose harsher penalties on employers hiring undocumented workers.

In some cases, immigrants have been deported to countries far removed from their actual homelands.

Source: GovTrack

A CLIMATE OF FEAR

These policies lack a comprehensive vision and actively fuel fear. A 2025 poll in California showed internal fractures within the Republican Party: 46% of Latino Republicans oppose deporting long-term residents, compared to only 30% of white Republicans.

Source: Los Angeles Times / UCLA Poll

STRUCTURAL CAUSES

Critics argue that these measures fail to address the structural drivers of migration—violence, poverty, institutional collapse—and instead restrict legal pathways that would help organize and reduce irregular flows.

THE DEMOCRATIC APPROACH: Reform with Humanity and Legality

Democrats, in contrast, have pursued policies aimed at modernizing the immigration system. Programs such as DACA, implemented by the Obama administration, emerged precisely because Republicans refused to support permanent solutions for undocumented youth.

Source: Global Affairs Survey

NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION

In 2025, the New Democrat Coalition introduced a comprehensive plan combining border security, pathways to regularization, and orderly legal channels for workers and families.

Sources: U.S. House of Representatives – New Democrat Coalition; Rep. Gabe Vasquez

NATIONAL POLLING

National surveys show that Democrats and independents support these approaches, favoring a “fair and rational” system.

A 2025 KFF/New York Times survey found that a majority of immigrant voters disapprove of Donald Trump’s handling of immigration—suggesting that more inclusive policies earn stronger public support.

Sources: KFF / New York Times

It is important to note that Democrats also experience internal tensions between moderate and progressive wings, but these debates occur within an explicit effort to balance security with humanity—a combination often rejected by Republicans.

REPUBLICAN BLOCKAGE: Sustaining Chaos for Political Gain

Although moments of bipartisan cooperation exist, the predominant pattern is obstruction. In 2024, Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan agreement that included funding for border security and improvements in asylum processing.

Analysts concluded the motive was electoral: maintaining the narrative of “chaos.”

Sources: NBC News, Brookings, The Guardian

Even formal resolutions from Democratic lawmakers emphasize that Republican obstruction has been a constant for decades, impeding any serious attempt to modernize the system.

Source: Rep. Gabe Vasquez – Congressional Resolution

A PERVERSE CYCLE

The outcome is a perverse cycle:

• A lack of legal pathways increases pressure at the border.
• The resulting disorder becomes electoral ammunition.
• That disorder—fixable through reform—persists because it is politically useful.

It is chaos as a tool of power.

A 2024 analysis by Third Way describes Americans as trapped between “Trump’s cruelty and Democrats’ appearance of chaos due to a lack of reforms.”

ABUSES AND CONSEQUENCES: From Family Separation to Racial Profiling

During the first Trump administration (2017–2021), extreme measures were implemented that marked a turning point: family separations, mass detentions, and expedited expulsions without due process.

Multiple investigations and FOIA disclosures have documented the resulting trauma and disorder.

Sources: American Immigration Council, ACLU, National Immigration Justice Center

The 287(g) program deepened these practices by turning local police into de facto immigration agents, with widely documented cases of racial profiling.

Sources: ACLU, American Immigration Council, academic studies

The Trump 2025 administration has revived and expanded these initiatives, prompting new civil rights concerns and questions about resource misallocation.

Sources: DHS, Civil Rights organizations

These practices do not reduce migration; they generate trauma, institutional mistrust, and greater instability.

THE ECONOMY AS THE REAL DRIVER

Beyond ideology, the U.S. economy continues to require 6 to 8 million additional workers in agriculture, construction, services, and logistics.

Without sufficient legal channels, migration pressures shift to the border.

It is almost a physical law of labor supply and demand: economic need in the U.S. attracts those who lack opportunities in their home countries.

Where legal pathways are absent, the border becomes the escape valve.

The problem will not disappear as long as Congress keeps using immigration as a political hostage.

CONCLUSION: Toward an Evidence-Based Debate

The so-called “immigration chaos” is not the responsibility of a single administration or party but the result of a system deliberately prevented from modernizing.

While Democrats have promoted legal and humanitarian reforms, Republicans have prioritized punitive tactics and obstruction that prolong the crisis for political gain.

In a country where support for legal immigration has reached historic levels, it is urgent to replace partisan rhetoric with an informed dialogue that recognizes both economic needs and democratic principles.

Only then will it be possible to build a safe, humane, and effective immigration system suited to the 21st century—and to provide clear, accessible information to those who, due to time or circumstance, have not had the opportunity to explore an issue so central to public life.

Dr. Alfredo Cuéllar is a professor and international consultant, founder of Micropolitics as a discipline—the study of everyday exercises of power in organizations and public life. He was the first Mexican to teach at Harvard Graduate School of Education and is the author of Micropolítica: El poder que habita en lo cotidiano. Comments & clarifications: alfredocuellar@me.com