Immigration and Emigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      This Border Deal Is a Political Trap for Democrats

      by

      For the past two months, a small group of senators from both parties has been negotiating a deal to address the crisis at our southern border. The lawmakers are united in their desire to stop unauthorized migrants from entering the United States — an ambitious objective that has eluded past administrations.But the policies under discussion are likely to drive more unauthorized migration to the border and make President Biden’s immigration challenges even worse.In December border officials processed some 300,000 migrants — the most recorded in a single month. Over the past decade, Republican leaders in Congress have failed to come to the table to negotiate on immigration policies that Americans support, and yet they have created the false perception that Trump-era policies can solve the border crisis. Mr. Trump’s record on immigration shows it’s just not that simple.The negotiations demonstrate how far the immigration debate has shifted away from solutions that once defined bipartisan immigration reform efforts, like a 2013 Senate bill that would have prioritized border security and a path to legal status and eventual citizenship for the estimated 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.In 2016, Donald Trump killed broad support in his party for this type of deal by casting immigrants as threats to our nation. As president, he restricted the number of immigrants coming to the United States, separated families, and dismantled our immigration courts, hampering the ability to process asylum seekers at the border. And yet in 2019, under his watch, there was a 90 percent increase in migrant apprehensions along the southern border compared to the year before.Today, as the crisis is being felt not just along the border but also in cities across the nation, voters strongly disapprove of President Biden’s handling of the border. His administration has not taken meaningful action to stop Republican-controlled states from sending buses full of asylum seekers to cities with no advance notice or to step in with a federal solution. As a result, Democrats are now more open to working toward a solution that reduces unauthorized immigration.The proposed deal would simultaneously restrict and expand executive authority. For starters, Mr. Biden could lose key powers that presidents have used for decades to regulate immigration in times of crisis. Worse, if Mr. Trump is re-elected, he will have new tools at his disposal that he could use to terrorize immigrants and make the chaos at the border even more acute.As a former government official who has worked in the executive and legislative branches to identify solutions to mass migration at the southern border, I agree with lawmakers that the status quo is unsustainable and that reforms are needed. But this deal will not alleviate Mr. Biden’s border challenges unless Congress builds legal migration pathways that weaken cartels who have profited the most from new asylum restrictions.Take the reported expulsion authority that Senate negotiators are considering. The policy would allow border officials to expel migrants without asylum screenings. That may appear to be an effective deterrence measure but similar asylum restrictions, including Title 42, have proved otherwise. When I served on the National Security Council, I examined whether expulsions played a role in reducing smuggling activity. The data showed that not only did more people attempt to cross than before, but they also took more dangerous routes, guided by smugglers who profited handsomely.Instead of what is on the table now, Democrats should learn from past mistakes and fight for a plan that would create more legal pathways, incentivize people to seek asylum at our ports of entry, expedite asylum claims so that people who are eligible can work and contribute to our economy, and deport people who do not have valid legal claims to stay in the United States. Congress must grant Mr. Biden’s request for funding to hire agents and asylum officers to process migrants in a humane and orderly fashion — which a majority of voters support.The most nonsensical demand in the current border deal is that Senate Republicans want to restrict the president’s parole authority. In January 2023, Mr. Biden announced a series of measures aimed at stemming unauthorized crossings, including new legal pathways for migrants from Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua. The president invoked his powers to extend parole to people from these countries who had an American sponsor, giving them permission to work and apply for asylum if they hoped to stay beyond two years. And it worked. The data shows that apprehension of these migrants declined by 92 percent within a year.Democrats may think that it is worth embracing punitive immigration policies for the hope of improving Mr. Biden’s polling numbers. But if these lawmakers really want to stop people from coming here, they must also address the drivers of migration.Deteriorating conditions in Latin America and the Caribbean guarantee that more migrants will be forced to seek refuge in the United States. Democrats should incentivize countries across the region to build capacity to protect asylum seekers, create legal pathways and increase foreign aid and humanitarian assistance to help would-be migrants live safely closer to home.In the short term, the White House can demonstrate leadership by using every tool at its disposal to accelerate the processing of asylum cases, work with regional partners to find protection for migrants before they make their way to the border and develop a federal response to help cities buckling under the strain of absorbing tens of thousands of migrants. An administration capable of welcoming more than 70,000 Afghans and coordinating their arrival in communities around the country is equally capable of coordinating the arrival of asylum seekers and identifying temporary federal housing to relieve communities struggling to provide housing.There is too much at stake for Democrats to accept the terms of this Senate proposal. While it is understandable to want to fix the vulnerabilities at the border, Mr. Trump and his advisers have been clear that terrorizing immigrants is central to their second-term agenda. He has promised to round up immigrants in camps and conduct mass deportations. He has accused immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”Mr. Biden has begun his re-election campaign with a promise to protect our democracy from these harms. Yet by compromising on policies that are likely to increase unauthorized migration at the border, he risks emboldening Mr. Trump and his ilk to step up their attacks on immigrants. On Jan. 5, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said in a radio interview that the state isn’t “shooting people” illegally crossing the border because “the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”Mr. Biden must help voters understand that the border won’t change until Congress builds the immigration system our country needs. This political moment demands ambitious solutions that can address the scope of today’s migration challenge, not a set of policies that will keep us stuck in the same failed legal framework of the past decade.Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      After the Iowa Shooting, Demands That Politicians Act

      by

      More from our inbox:Motivating Young People to Vote for Biden‘A Glimmer of Hope’Immigration Judges Are Needed. I Volunteer!The Inmates and the CatsParents picked up their children from a reunification center in Perry, Iowa, on Thursday morning.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “One Confirmed Dead Among Several Victims in Iowa School Shooting” (news article, Jan. 5):It has happened again, this time in Perry, Iowa, and it will keep happening until voters confront the politicians. With a majority of Americans saying they favor stricter gun laws such as universal background checks, there is no better time than now, in this election year, for voters to ask the candidates to support efforts to reduce gun violence in America.Republicans, especially recently, are demanding yes or no answers to critical questions. In town halls and at rallies and caucuses, candidates need to be confronted: Will you commit to specific steps to insure the safety of our schoolchildren, yes or no?There is no better time or place to demand yes or no answers to questions about gun safety than in Iowa in the next two weeks.David SimpsonRindge, N.H.To the Editor:I’m distressed and angered about another public school shooting — and there is still no action from state and local governments regarding protecting our children from these violent acts. As a public-school teacher and a parent, I fear for my own children as well as my students.We know we need to keep guns out of the hands of violent and mentally unstable people, but we also need to keep people who are violent out of our schools. We need changes to our laws and policies if we are going to stop this epidemic of gun violence against our children.Kathryn FamelyFalmouth, Mass.To the Editor:Re “In Nashville, Parents Believed Time Had Come for Gun Limits” (front page, Dec. 29):The parents of Tennessee children who were present during the Covenant School mass shooting last March deserve all the credit in the world for standing up to be counted in the fight against the madness of the easy access to firearms in this country.In some ways, fighting for change in an extremely red state like Tennessee is at the same time more difficult and frustrating, yet also more valuable.When a Republican or a conservative person is persuaded that we need to strengthen common-sense gun laws, eliminate the gun show loophole and ban the sale of high-speed automatic rifles, the accomplishment is greater. Most Democrats already favor such restrictions.The stories of these parents’ encounters with Tennessee lawmakers, while inspiring, are also infuriating. It seems unfathomable that a legislator would sympathize in private with these parents who are trying to make the world safer for schoolchildren, yet then vote against any measure that might actually accomplish that goal.For these parents and others frustrated and enraged by these gutless lawmakers, I can suggest one other tactic. Perhaps only the thought of political defeat would be persuasive. It may seem unpalatable for a lifelong conservative Republican to vote for the Democratic candidate, yet doing so once over this life-or-death issue may be the only way to alter the behavior of obstinate politicians.Marc SpringerBrookline, Mass.Motivating Young People to Vote for Biden Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Young Voters Have an Entirely Different Concept of Politics,” by Michelle Cottle (Opinion, Jan. 3):Ms. Cottle brings up the problem of President Biden’s lack of appeal to young voters. Mr. Biden’s strongest suit is still this: He’s not Donald Trump.If young voters care about the environment, all Democrats have to do is feature Mr. Trump’s “I want to drill, drill, drill!” remark in their ads, along with his comments ignoring climate change.Even more important is Mr. Trump’s nominating for the Supreme Court conservative justices who have taken away women’s rights over their own bodies.If young voters aren’t feeling motivated to vote by these issues, they should be.Christine GrafSt. Paul, Minn.To the Editor:I absolutely agree with Michelle Cottle’s observation that Bernie Sanders was crucial to Joe Biden’s support among young people in the 2020 election. If you compare this year’s primary season with the 2020 one, this year’s so far is very lackluster for the Democrats.To give it the energy of the 2020 primary season, Mr. Biden needs to put Bernie Sanders — and Elizabeth Warren — on the road again, especially on college campuses. And they need to talk about what they hope to accomplish in a second Biden administration, not just about what has been accomplished so far.These two will provide the energy and vision that young people crave and will give them the motivation to show up at the polls on Election Day.Paul MarshLansing, Mich.‘A Glimmer of Hope’Students playing between classes this month at the Hand in Hand school in Jerusalem.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “In a Jewish-Arab School, an Oasis From Division but Not From Deep Fears” (news article, Jan. 1):I was delighted to read this story on the first day of 2024. Day after day reading about the atrocities committed in Israel and the resulting horrors happening in Gaza has been so depressing. Reading 9-year-old Ben, a “religious Jew,” say that his best friend is Arab gave me a glimmer of hope for the future.Scott BaleStamford, Conn.Immigration Judges Are Needed. I Volunteer! Fred Ramos for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Migrant Surge Stretches U.S. Border Patrol Thin” (front page, Dec. 29):I am a recently retired lawyer. Your description of the unmanageable burdens immigration is placing on our resources jolted me to ponder an untapped but significant solution to the limited number of immigration judges needed to process the backlog of asylum cases (as distinguished from the more complex deportation proceedings).There are thousands of ready, willing and able retired lawyers and judges throughout our country who could be quickly trained and qualified locally or online to process asylum cases.Many in this cohort already voluntarily serve our state and federal courts as appointed and volunteer lawyers for those who cannot afford a lawyer. Many also serve as court-appointed court mediators without compensation. I suggest that activating these resources would rapidly reduce the huge backlog of asylum cases.I hereby volunteer if anyone at the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security wants my help.Les WeinsteinLos AngelesThe writer is a member of the California State Bar and a former U.S. Department of Justice trial lawyer.The Inmates and the Cats Cristobal Olivares for The New York TimesTo the Editor:I’m glad that “Cats Filled This Chilean Prison. Then, the Inmates Fell in Love” ran on the front page of the very first paper of 2024.There’s no end to bad news, and it was uplifting to read about programs that connect prisoners with animals and specifically about Chillona, “a relaxed black cat that has become the darling of a nine-man cell crammed with bunk beds.”Bonding with pets apparently leads to an increase in empathy and a decrease in recidivism. When the inmates in Santiago care for the cats, the cats, in return, offer “love, affection and acceptance.”Talk about a win-win.Carol WestonNew York More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McConnell and Other Senate Republicans Criticize Trump’s Talk on Immigrants

      by

      The minority leader took an oblique swipe at Donald Trump’s rhetoric about migrants “poisoning the blood” of the country, but others like Senator Tommy Tuberville defended him.When Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, was asked about former President Donald J. Trump’s now-standard stump line claiming that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” Senator McConnell delivered an indirect but contemptuous response.“Well, it strikes me it didn’t bother him when he appointed Elaine Chao secretary of transportation,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said. Ms. Chao, who was born in Taiwan and immigrated to America as a child, is married to Mr. McConnell.Mr. McConnell referred to a feud that has simmered for more than a year over the former president’s racist attacks against Ms. Chao. Mr. Trump, often referring to her by the derisive nickname “Coco Chow,” has suggested that she — and by extension her husband, Mr. McConnell — are beholden to China because of her connections to the country.Mr. Trump repeated his “poisoning the blood” claim at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, prompting an outburst of criticism from Senate Republicans this week.Senator Susan Collins of Maine told a reporter for The Independent that the former president’s remarks were “deplorable.”“That was horrible that those comments are just — they have no place, particularly from a former president,” Ms. Collins said.Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, denounced Mr. Trump’s language as “unacceptable.”“I think that that rhetoric is very inappropriate,” Mr. Rounds said, according to NBC News. “But this administration’s policies are feeding right into it. And so, I disagree with that. I think we should celebrate our diversity.”Mr. McConnell’s own oblique retort, which did not directly criticize Mr. Trump’s language, signaled that even some of the former president’s boldest Republican critics on Capitol Hill are treading lightly, as he dominates the polls in the Republican presidential race.Mr. McConnell has spent years trying to steer the party away from Mr. Trump after the riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, in large part because he views the former president as a political loser. Often when Mr. McConnell criticizes Mr. Trump he does so by saying his behavior would make it hard for him to win another presidential election.Senate Republicans are also trying to negotiate a deal with the White House, proposing sweeping restrictions on migration in exchange for approving additional military aid to Ukraine and Israel, a top priority for President Biden.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Senate majority leader, denounced Mr. Trump’s remarks on Tuesday as “despicable” but signaled that Senate Democrats would push forward with negotiations on border restrictions.“We all know there’s a problem at the border,” Mr. Schumer said. “The president does. Democrats do. And we’re going to try to solve that problem consistent with our principles.”Other Senate Republicans more delicately admonished Mr. Trump for his remarks, referring to either their own immigrant heritage or the principle that America is a nation of immigrants.“My grandfather is an immigrant, so that’s not a view I share,” John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said in a CNN interview on Monday. He added, “We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws,” describing illegal immigration as “a runaway train at the Southern border.”But other Senate Republicans embraced Mr. Trump’s language. Senator Tommy Tuberville, who had defended white supremacists serving in the military before retracting his remarks this year, said that Mr. Trump’s attacks on immigrants did not go far enough.“I’m mad he wasn’t tougher than that,” Mr. Tuberville told a reporter for The Independent. “When you see what’s happening at the border? We’re being overrun. They’re taking us over.”Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio said it was “objectively and obviously true” that “illegal immigrants were poisoning the blood of the country.” He also scolded the reporter who asked him about Mr. Trump’s remarks, accusing her of using Mr. Trump’s words to try to “narrow the limits of debate on immigration in this country.”Representative Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican in a House seat in New York City, denied that Mr. Trump’s remarks were referring to immigrants.“He didn’t say the words ‘immigrants,’ I think he was talking about the Democratic policies,” she said in a CNN interview on Monday. “Look, I know that some are trying to make it seem like Trump is anti-immigrant. The reality is, he was married to immigrants, he has hired immigrants.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Likening Nikki Haley to Clinton, Ads From Pro-DeSantis Super PAC Fall Short

      by

      The claims by a super PAC that backs Gov. Ron DeSantis comparing Nikki Haley to Hillary Clinton are misleading.In Republican politics, being likened to a prominent Democrat like Hillary Clinton may well be among the highest of insults.Some G.O.P. presidential hopefuls and their allies are seizing on that comparison to denounce Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina who has gained momentum in the primary race. During the Republican debate in Alabama on Wednesday, for example, the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy criticized Ms. Haley for giving “foreign multinational speeches like Hillary Clinton.”In particular, though, supporters of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida have leveraged that line of attack, including in advertisements by a pro-DeSantis super PAC, Fight Right. But the ads trying to tie Ms. Haley to Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, make claims that are misleading.Here’s a fact-check of some of those claims.WHAT WAS SAID“We know her as Crooked Hillary, but to Nikki Haley, she’s her role model, the reason she ran for office.”— Fight Right in an advertisementWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First

      by

      In the spring of 1989, the Chinese Communist Party used tanks and troops to crush a pro-democracy protest in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Most of the West, across traditional partisan lines, was aghast at the crackdown that killed at least hundreds of student activists. But one prominent American was impressed.“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it,” Donald J. Trump said in an interview with Playboy magazine the year after the massacre. “Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”It was a throwaway line in a wide-ranging interview, delivered to a journalist profiling a 43-year-old celebrity businessman who was not then a player in national politics or world affairs. But in light of what Mr. Trump has gone on to become, his exaltation of the ruthless crushing of democratic protesters is steeped in foreshadowing.Mr. Trump’s violent and authoritarian rhetoric on the 2024 campaign trail has attracted growing alarm and comparisons to historical fascist dictators and contemporary populist strongmen. In recent weeks, he has dehumanized his adversaries as “vermin” who must be “rooted out,” declared that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” encouraged the shooting of shoplifters and suggested that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, deserved to be executed for treason.As he runs for president again facing four criminal prosecutions, Mr. Trump may seem more angry, desperate and dangerous to American-style democracy than in his first term. But the throughline that emerges is far more long-running: He has glorified political violence and spoken admiringly of autocrats for decades.Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., brought one of the sets of indictments that Mr. Trump faces.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAs a presidential candidate in July 2016, he praised the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as having been “so good” at killing terrorists. Months after being inaugurated, he told the strongman leader of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, that his brutal campaign of thousands of extrajudicial killings in the name of fighting drugs was “an unbelievable job.” And throughout his four years in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump blew through boundaries and violated democratic norms.What would be different in a second Trump administration is not so much his character as his surroundings. Forces that somewhat contained his autocratic tendencies in his first term — staff members who saw their job as sometimes restraining him, a few congressional Republicans episodically willing to criticize or oppose him, a partisan balance on the Supreme Court that occasionally ruled against him — would all be weaker.As a result, Mr. Trump’s and his advisers’ more extreme policy plans and ideas for a second term would have a greater prospect of becoming reality.A Radical AgendaTo be sure, some of what Mr. Trump and his allies are planning is in line with what any standard-issue Republican president would most likely do. For example, Mr. Trump would very likely roll back many of President Biden’s policies to curb carbon emissions and hasten the transition to electric cars. Such a reversal of various rules and policies would significantly weaken environmental protections, but much of the changes reflect routine and longstanding conservative skepticism of environmental regulations.Other parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda, however, are aberrational. No U.S. president before him had toyed with withdrawing from NATO, the United States’ military alliance with Western democracies. He has said he would fundamentally re-evaluate “NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission” in a second term.He has said he would order the military to attack drug cartels in Mexico, which would violate international law unless its government consented. It most likely would not.He would also use the military on domestic soil. While it is generally illegal to use troops for domestic law enforcement, the Insurrection Act allows exceptions. After some demonstrations against police violence in 2020 became riots, Mr. Trump had an order drafted to use troops to crack down on protesters in Washington, D.C., but didn’t sign it. He suggested at a rally in Iowa this year that he intends to unilaterally send troops into Democratic-run cities to enforce public order in general.“You look at any Democrat-run state, and it’s just not the same — it doesn’t work,” Mr. Trump told the crowd, calling cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco crime dens. “We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I’ll do — because you’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in — the next time, I’m not waiting.”Mr. Trump’s plans to purge undocumented immigrants include sweeping raids, huge detention camps, deportations on the scale of millions per year, stopping asylum, trying to end birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents and invoking the Insurrection Act near the southern border to also use troops as immigration agents.Mr. Trump has sweeping plans to deal with undocumented immigrants.Verónica G. Cárdenas for The New York TimesMr. Trump would seek to expand presidential power in myriad ways — concentrating greater authority over the executive branch in the White House, ending the independence of agencies Congress set up to operate outside of presidential control and reducing civil service protections to make it easier to fire and replace tens of thousands of government workers.More than anything else, Mr. Trump’s vow to use the Justice Department to wreak vengeance against his adversaries is a naked challenge to democratic values. Building on how he tried to get prosecutors to go after his enemies while in office, it would end the post-Watergate norm of investigative independence from White House political control.In all these efforts, Mr. Trump would be backed in a second term by a well-funded outside infrastructure. In 2016, conservative think tanks were bastions of George W. Bush-style Republicanism. But new ones run by Trump administration veterans have sprung up, and the venerable Heritage Foundation has refashioned itself to stay in step with Trumpism.A coalition has been drawing up America First-style policy plans, nicknamed Project 2025. (Mr. Trump’s campaign has expressed appreciation but said only plans announced by him or his campaign count.) While some proposals under development in such places would advance longstanding Republican megadonor goals, such as curbing regulations on businesses, others are more tuned to Mr. Trump’s personal interests.The Center for Renewing America, for example, has published a paper titled “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent.” The paper was written by Jeffrey Clark, whom Mr. Trump nearly made acting attorney general to aid his attempt to subvert the election and is facing criminal charges in Georgia in connection with that effort.Asked for comment, a spokesman for Mr. Trump did not address specifics but instead criticized The New York Times while calling Mr. Trump “strong on crime.”Weakened GuardrailsEven running in 2016, Mr. Trump flouted democratic norms.He falsely portrayed his loss in the Iowa caucuses as fraud and suggested he would treat the results of the general election as legitimate only if he won. He threatened to imprison Hillary Clinton, smeared Mexican immigrants as rapists and promised to bar Muslims from entering the United States. He offered to pay the legal bills of any supporters who beat up protesters at his rallies and stoked hatred against reporters covering his events.In office, Mr. Trump refused to divest from his businesses, and people courting his favor booked expensive blocks of rooms in his hotels. Despite an anti-nepotism law, he gave White House jobs to his daughter and son-in-law. He used emergency power to spend more on a border wall than Congress authorized. His lawyers floated a pardon at his campaign chairman, whom Mr. Trump praised for not “flipping” as prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to get him to cooperate as a witness in the Russia inquiry; Mr. Trump later did pardon him.Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, received White House posts despite an anti-nepotism law.Al Drago for The New York TimesBut some of the most potentially serious of his violations of norms fell short of fruition.Mr. Trump pressured the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries. The Justice Department opened several criminal investigations, from the scrutiny of former Secretary of State John Kerry and of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey Jr. to the attempt by a special counsel, John Durham, to find a basis to charge Obama-era national security officials or Mrs. Clinton with crimes connected to the origins of the Russia investigation. But to Mr. Trump’s fury, prosecutors decided against bringing such charges.And neither effort for which he was impeached succeeded. Mr. Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into opening a criminal investigation into Mr. Biden by withholding military aid, but it did not cooperate. Mr. Trump sought to subvert his 2020 election loss and stoked the Capitol riot, but Vice President Mike Pence and congressional majorities rejected his attempt to stay in power.There is reason to believe various obstacles and bulwarks that limited Mr. Trump in his first term would be absent in a second one.Some of what Mr. Trump tried to do was thwarted by incompetence and dysfunction among his initial team. But over four years, those who stayed with him learned to wield power more effectively. After courts blocked his first, haphazardly crafted travel ban, for example, his team developed a version that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect.Four years of his appointments created an entrenched Republican supermajority on the Supreme Court that most likely would now side with him on some cases that he lost, such as the 5-to-4 decision in June 2020 that blocked him from ending a program that shields from deportation certain undocumented people who had been brought as children and grew up as Americans.Republicans in Congress were often partners and enablers — working with him to confirm judges and cut corporate taxes, while performing scant oversight. But a few key congressional Republicans occasionally denounced his rhetoric or checked his more disruptive proposals.In 2017, then-Senator Bob Corker rebuked Mr. Trump for making reckless threats toward North Korea on Twitter, and then-Senator John McCain provided the decisive vote against Mr. Trump’s push to rescind, with no replacement plan, a law that makes health insurance coverage widely available.It is likely that Republicans in Congress would be even more pliable in any second Trump term. The party has become more inured to and even enthusiastic about Mr. Trump’s willingness to cross lines. And Mr. Trump has worn down, outlasted, intimidated into submission or driven out leading Republican lawmakers who have independent standing and demonstrated occasional willingness to oppose him.Mr. McCain, who was the 2008 G.O.P. presidential nominee, died in 2018. Former Representative Liz Cheney, who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and helped lead the committee that investigated those events, lost her seat to a pro-Trump primary challenger. Senator Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and the only G.O.P. senator who voted to convict Mr. Trump at his first impeachment trial, is retiring.Representative Liz Cheney, center right, helped lead the investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and later lost a primary challenge to a pro-Trump candidate.Doug Mills/The New York TimesFear of violence by Trump supporters also enforces control. In recent books, both Mr. Romney and Ms. Cheney said that Republican colleagues, whom they did not name, told them they wanted to vote against Mr. Trump in the Jan. 6-related impeachment proceedings but did not do so out of fear for their and their families’ safety.Personnel Is PolicyPerhaps the most important check on Mr. Trump’s presidency was internal administration resistance to some of his more extreme demands. A parade of his own former high-level appointees has since warned that he is unfit to be president, including a former White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly; former defense secretaries Jim Mattis and Mark T. Esper; the former national security adviser John R. Bolton; former Attorney General William P. Barr; and others.Mr. Trump in turn has denounced them all as weak, stupid and disloyal. He has privately told those close to him that his biggest mistakes concerned the people he appointed, in particular his choices for attorney general. The advisers who have stuck with him are determined that if he wins a new term, there will be no officials who intentionally stymie his agenda.In addition to developing policy papers, the coalition of think tanks run by people aligned with Mr. Trump has been compiling a database of thousands of vetted potential recruits to hand to a transition team if he wins the election. Similar efforts are underway by former senior Trump administration officials to prepare to stock the government with lawyers likely to find ways to bless radical White House ideas rather than raising legal objections.Such staffing efforts would build on a shift in his final year as president. In 2020, Mr. Trump replaced advisers who had sought to check him and installed a young aide, John McEntee, to root out further officials deemed insufficiently loyal.Depending on Senate elections, confirming particularly contentious nominees to important positions might be challenging. But another norm violation Mr. Trump gradually developed was making aggressive use of his power to temporarily fill vacancies with “acting” heads for positions that are supposed to undergo Senate confirmation.In 2020, for example, Mr. Trump made Richard Grenell — a combative Trump ally and former ambassador to Germany — acting director of national intelligence. Two prior Trump-era intelligence leaders had angered Mr. Trump by defending an assessment that Russia had covertly tried to help his 2016 campaign and by informing Democratic leaders it was doing so again in 2020. Mr. Grenell instead won Mr. Trump’s praise by using the role to declassify sensitive materials that Republicans used to portray the Russia investigation as suspicious.Richard Grenell was one of the acting heads named by Mr. Trump for positions that are supposed to undergo Senate confirmation. He became acting director of national intelligence.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesAfter Mr. Trump left office, there were many proposals to codify into law democratic norms he violated. Ideas included tightening limits on presidents’ use of emergency powers, requiring disclosure of their taxes, giving teeth to a constitutional ban on outside payments and making it harder to abuse their pardon power and authority over prosecutors.In December 2021, when Democrats still controlled the House, it passed many such proposals as the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Every Republican but one — then-Representative Adam Kinzinger, who was retiring after having voted to impeach Mr. Trump after the Jan. 6 riot — voted against the bill, which died in the Senate.The debate on the House floor largely played out on a premise that reduced its urgency: Mr. Trump was gone. Democrats argued for viewing the reforms as being about future presidents, while Republicans dismissed it as an unnecessary swipe at Mr. Trump.“Donald Trump is — unfortunately — no longer president,” said Representative Rick Crawford, Republican of Arkansas. “Time to stop living in the past.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      To Beat Trump, Nikki Haley Is Trying to Speak to All Sides of a Fractured G.O.P.

      by

      Her campaign will test what political strategists and observers of her rise in politics have said is among her greatest political skills: an ability to massage her message to the moment.To beat former President Donald J. Trump in the coming months, Nikki Haley, his former ambassador to the United Nations, must stitch together a coalition of Republicans: Mr. Trump’s most faithful supporters, voters who like his policies but who have grown weary of him personally, and the smaller but still vocal contingent who abhor him entirely.It’s a challenge that will test what political strategists and those who have observed Ms. Haley’s ascent from her first underdog win in South Carolina have said is among her greatest skills as a candidate: an ability to calibrate her message to the moment.Since announcing her bid in February, she has campaigned much like an old guard Republican: hawkish on foreign policy, supportive of legal immigration reform and staunchly in favor of the international alliances that Mr. Trump questioned during his administration. She has also sounded a lot like the former president, whose “America First” rhetoric she echoed while serving as one of his diplomats, with aggressive calls to send the U.S. military into Mexico and remarks about the need to rid schools and the military of perceived left-wing influences on hot-button cultural issues like race and transgender rights.Other than how she has navigated Mr. Trump himself, perhaps no issue best exemplifies Ms. Haley’s approach than abortion. She backed harsh restrictions on the procedure as governor of South Carolina and has called herself “unapologetically pro-life” on the trail, but she has struck a flexible tone as her party has flailed in countering the electoral backlash the conservative majority on the Supreme Court triggered when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Her appeals for “consensus” have been among the most common reasons cited for her upward climb in the polls in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist and a former aide to Mitt Romney who has known Ms. Haley since she was a state lawmaker first running for governor, said she “has always been a pragmatic conservative.” “She is comfortable in her own skin, and she is going to win or lose based on her own values and beliefs,” he said. Still, the difficulty for her, as for all the candidates attempting to emerge as a Trump alternative, is that “what a conservative is has been redefined by Trump himself,” he said.Mr. Trump’s lead over the field is dominant nationally and in every early state polled, and it remains uncertain that Ms. Haley could peel away enough of his faithful, no matter her approach, to come out on top. And what has so far propelled her could also become a liability, should she alienate one or more faction. Her rivals, including Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, have sought to portray her as insufficiently conservative and as someone who panders to Democrats. Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, labeled her a “snake oil salesman” who “will say whatever she needs to say to get power.”Her campaign officials and surrogates argue her politics have stayed the same, with the country and the world changing around her. “Nikki has always been a tough, anti-establishment conservative,” said Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokeswoman for Ms. Haley.Ms. Haley’s attempt to thread the needle on abortion is already being tested, as she has faced skepticism from Iowa’s evangelical community, a critical voting bloc. Addressing a conservative Christian audience in Iowa, Ms. Haley said she would have signed a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy as governor.Democrats seized on Ms. Haley’s remarks as proof that, despite her tone, she is no moderate on the issue. The influential evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats, who previously indicated that clear-cut abortion opposition would be the driving factor for his support, went on to endorse Mr. DeSantis. But just days earlier, Ms. Haley had received a seemingly impromptu endorsement from Marlys Popma, the former head of the state Republican Party and one of Iowa’s most prominent anti-abortion activists — who indicated she was comfortable with Ms. Haley’s stance.Here are four other issues on which Ms. Haley has shifted, evolved or otherwise tempered her positions.Immigration and refugeesMs. Haley first rose in politics on the deep red wave of the Tea Party — and its anti-immigrant sentiment. As governor, she signed some of the harshest immigration laws in the country in 2011, requiring law enforcement officers to ask certain people’s immigration status and businesses to verify that their workers were in the country legally.But Ms. Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, largely refrained from using dehumanizing language against immigrants and stuck to the consistent message that immigration was critical to the nation, as long as it was done legally. Still, two pivotal events prompted her to take a sharp turn on the issue: the deadly terror attack in Paris in 2015, and the rise of Mr. Trump.After the attack, Ms. Haley, who was then governor, went from supporting the efforts of faith groups to resettle refugees in South Carolina to aggressively fighting the Obama administration on the admission of Syrians fleeing violence, citing concerns over the vetting process.Before Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, she called his proposal to bar Muslims from traveling to the United States “absolutely un-American.” As Mr. Trump’s U.N. ambassador, she defended his order to temporarily block all refugees and people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U. S., as well as his decision to cut American funding to Palestinian refugees.On the trail, she has expressed support for expediting legal immigration avenues, for aiding escape from persecution and for improving the ways people can migrate, calling for a system based on merit and business needs, rather than quotas. But with a higher and more consistent frequency, she echoes Mr. Trump. She has promised to build a wall, send immigrants back and reinstitute some of Mr. Trump’s harshest immigration and asylum policies.Tough talk on ChinaMs. Haley seizes every opportunity to flex her foreign policy credentials and has stood out among her rivals for her steadfast support of Israel and Ukraine.A trickier spot has been her hawkish stance on China. Ms. Haley’s stump speeches are laden with warnings that China is outpacing the United States in shipbuilding, hacking American infrastructure and developing “neuro-strike weapons,” which she says can be used to “disrupt brain activity” of military commanders and civilians.But as governor of South Carolina, she lauded and welcomed Chinese companies that wanted to contribute to the state’s economy, helping those entities expand or open new operations. Those moves have opened her to attacks from Mr. DeSantis and other opponents, and she and Mr. DeSantis have lobbed false or misleading claims involving China at each other in recent weeks as the race for second place has tightened.Explaining her position on the campaign trail, Ms. Haley has argued that her administration’s investments in Chinese companies accounted for a fraction of the jobs and projects spurred during her tenure, and that she had not been aware of the dangers China posed until she became U.N. ambassador. The threat of China has also evolved, she adds.“There is not another governor in this race that hasn’t worked to recruit Chinese companies,” she said last month at a chapel in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Every governor has done the same thing, just like every one of you has Chinese products in your home.”Identity politicsFew moments have defined Ms. Haley more in the public view than when she signed legislation to take down the Confederate battle flag at the South Carolina State House, after a white supremacist shot and killed nine Black parishioners in Charleston in 2015, including a state senator. On the trail, she powerfully recalls the experience, casting herself as a new generational leader capable of bridging divides.But the feat also captures her calibration: As she ran for election in 2010 and then re-election in 2014, she rejected talk of removing the flag, a thorny issue in a state where Confederate heritage groups were a major political force. After the 2015 attack rattled South Carolina, Ms. Haley seized on the newfound political will among state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.Ms. Haley has also wielded her own identity to significant effect. Much as she invokes her high heels to point out that she is the only woman in the race, she has used her family background to call for staunch immigration measures and her election as the first woman of color to lead South Carolina to argue that America is neither “rotten” nor “racist.”Fighting the conservative cultural battles that have animated the G.O.P. base in recent years has not been central to her presidential campaign, but Ms. Haley has echoed Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump in some of her language criticizing gender and racial diversity initiatives in boardrooms and classrooms. Her stump speech incorporates nods to the growing wave of anti-trans legislation, and her call to end “gender pronoun classes in the military” remains one of her most reliable applause lines on the trail. At her education policy rollout in September, she joined a conservative political group known for promoting book bans, another cause adopted by many on the far right.But as new polling has shown that the battle against “wokeness” has lost some of its political potency, her more recent remarks about education have tended to focus on support for school choice programs, which allow public money to be directed to private and religious schools, and tackling children’s low test scores in core subjects like reading and math.Donald J. TrumpIn the 2024 race, perhaps Ms. Haley’s most careful approach has been toward Mr. Trump, whose support among Republicans remains significant.Not long after the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Ms. Haley said Mr. Trump had “lost any sort of political viability.” But she later went on to say that the party needed the former president and suggested that she would not jump into the 2024 presidential race if Mr. Trump decided to run. She then became the first to challenge him for the nomination — a move the Trump campaign highlighted in an email to supporters as one of her “flip flops” in the 2024 race.In a January interview with the Fox News host Bret Baier, Ms. Haley explained her change of heart, saying conditions at the border, inflation and crime, and the country’s approach to foreign policy had worsened since she initially indicated she would stay out of the running. “I think we need a young generation to come in to step up and really start fixing things,” she said.On the trail, she has alternated between criticism and praise of Mr. Trump. On the one hand, she has lauded him for his border policies. At the first presidential debates in August, she was among six candidates who raised their hands to indicate they would support the former president as their party’s nominee, even if he were convicted of a felony. But she also has called Mr. Trump “thin-skinned and easily distracted” — among her sharpest critiques — and more recently has been describing him as a force of “drama and chaos” that the country cannot afford. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Election Results Deliver a Turn to the Far Right

      by

      In an election result that sent shock waves across Europe, Geert Wilders, a longtime far-right provocateur, is closer than ever to becoming prime minister.The Netherlands, long regarded as one of Europe’s most socially liberal countries, woke up to a drastically changed political landscape on Thursday after a far-right party swept national elections in a result that has reverberated throughout Europe.Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which advocates banning the Quran, closing Islamic schools and entirely halting the acceptance of asylum seekers, won 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, making it by far the biggest party, in a clear rebuke of the country’s political establishment.The results, tabulated overnight after Wednesday’s voting, give Mr. Wilders enough support to try to form a governing coalition. Centrist and center-right parties long wary of the firebrand have left the door ajar to a possible partnership, giving Mr. Wilders a chance to become the Netherlands’ first far-right prime minister.While people across the political spectrum expressed surprise at the election outcome, and the Dutch reputation of liberalism persists, experts say that Mr. Wilders succeeded by tapping into a discontent with government that dates back at least two decades.“It’s not suddenly out of nowhere,” said Janka Stoker, a professor of leadership and organizational change at the University of Groningen.Mr. Wilders’s party has previously drawn more support in opinion polls than in the voting booth. This time the trend was reversed. Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders has been a persistent political presence in the Netherlands through those years, and now it seemed his time had come.A career politician, Mr. Wilders has served as a member of the Dutch House of Representatives since 1998. In 2004, he split from the party headed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, forming the Party for Freedom two years later.Exceptionally, Mr. Wilders’s party is not based on a membership structure, making him the sole decision maker and synonymous with his party.He is close ideologically to Marine Le Pen of France, the far-right National Rally leader, and received hearty congratulations from Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister who has become another icon of the far right.At times Mr. Wilders has also been compared to former President Donald J. Trump, for his penchant to say things in the most direct and divisive of ways. Many of Mr. Wilders’s supporters say they feel buoyed and relieved that he is willing to give voice to what they cannot say, or feel they are not supposed to say.Yet Mr. Wilders’s provocations have required him to move through life with a security detail, and he has said that days can go by during which he does not see the daylight.Because of the need for security over the apparent threats against him, not much is known about Mr. Wilders’s isolated private life. He has been married since 1992 to a Hungarian diplomat, Krisztina. His rare public appearances guarantee that every time he ventures out he attracts a media circus.Mr. Wilders told the Dutch magazine Panorama in March that as part of his security, the windows to his study are blacked out, making it impossible to see outside. He also told the magazine that he had not been able to drive in his own car since 2004, saying it was a “symbol of freedom that I crave, but that I don’t have anymore.”A protester greeting Mr. Wilders at a 2017 campaign stop with a sign reading “Don’t Give Hate And Fear a Vote.” He lives with tight security, rarely appearing in public.Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders’s political talk has been so divisive that his own brother Paul has publicly spoken out against him.Over the years, Mr. Wilders’s comments about Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands have gotten widespread media attention. They have also landed him in court.In 2014, Mr. Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, which resulted in a crowd chanting, “Fewer! Fewer!”A Dutch court convicted Mr. Wilders of insulting a group with the anti-Moroccan chant, but he avoided punishment.At a campaign event in 2017, Mr. Wilders referred to Moroccan immigrants as “scum.”During the current campaign he ran on a “Dutch First” platform, though in the final days of the race he moderated some of his anti-Islam vitriol, saying there were “more important priorities.”He also said that his proposals “would be within the law and Constitution,” in an effort to court other parties to govern with him.But while his language may have softened, his party platform did not. “The Netherlands is not an Islamic country: no Islamic schools, Qurans and mosques,” it says.“The borders are wide open and everyone who comes in wants a living space,” it adds, while advocating a “zero tolerance” policy to rein in what it calls “street terrorists” and promising funding for 10,000 extra police officers.“The police need to be in charge in the street again,” according to the platform. “Criminals have to be arrested immediately and put in prison for a long time.”An election poster for Mr. Wilders outside the Dutch Parliament building in The Hague. His standing appeared to rise in the final days of the campaign.Yves Herman/ReutersMr. Wilders — as well as other politicians, including Pieter Omtzigt, a centrist who had hoped to upend the election — had linked an increase in migrants to a shortage of housing, which was among the biggest issues for Dutch voters.But it was Mr. Wilders who ultimately spoke to a discontent that experts said could be traced back at least to the rise of Pim Fortuyn, a right-wing populist who was assassinated a week before elections in which he had led the opinion polls. Mr. Fortuyn, who hoped to become the Netherlands’ first gay prime minister, ran on a strong anti-immigrant platform more than 20 years ago.Voter dissatisfaction was also evident in more recent elections: Regional votes this year and in 2019, which decide the makeup of the Dutch Senate, saw big victories by populist newcomers.Last year, 60 percent of Dutch people said they were unhappy with how politics was done in the country, according to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Elections are often a reaction to what happened previously, Ms. Stoker said, referring to Mr. Rutte’s record-breaking 13-year tenure as prime minister. The Rutte government collapsed in July over disputes on immigration policy, precipitating Wednesday’s election.While Mr. Rutte has been a stalwart of Dutch politics, several scandals plagued his leadership which added to an erosion in trust in the government, according to Dutch political experts. Mr. Rutte will stay on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, who has served a record 13 years in the role, will stay on until a new government is formed.Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockIn the final days of the campaign, Mr. Wilders started inching up in the polls partly helped by what many people regarded as strong performances in televised debates, a stronger media focus on him and a slight softening of some of his extreme positions on Islam.But the margin of victory was unexpected. Mr. Wilders’s party has often performed better in opinion polls than in elections. This time, the trend reversed.“These were the most volatile elections ever — never before have so many seats changed hands,” said Tom van der Meer, a professor in political science at the University of Amsterdam.Mr. Rutte had long said that he would not govern with Mr. Wilders. But Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, Mr. Rutte’s successor as the lead candidate for the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, had left open the door to forming a coalition with Mr. Wilders.That softening appears to have bolstered Mr. Wilders’s performance — long a protest candidate with little hope of real power, this time he could present himself to Dutch voters as a strategic choice: a viable governing partner, even a potential prime minister.Still, it will be complicated for Mr. Wilders to move from the opposition into a stable coalition in a country where politics rests on the art of compromise.In 2010, he had an informal liaison with the mainstream conservative party’s coalition, but he bolted when it wanted to cut back pension benefits. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Los planes de Trump y sus aliados para ejercer el poder en 2025

      by

      Utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios y aumentar la represión a los inmigrantes serían algunas de las prioridades de Trump si regresa a la Casa Blanca.En el primer mitin de su campaña presidencial de 2024, el expresidente Donald Trump declaró: “Yo soy su castigo”. Más tarde, prometió utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para perseguir a sus adversarios políticos, empezando por el presidente Joe Biden y su familia.Detrás de estas amenazas públicas hay una serie de planes de Trump y sus aliados que pondrían en jaque elementos fundamentales de la gobernanza, la democracia, la política exterior y el Estado de derecho de Estados Unidos si regresa a la Casa Blanca.Algunos de estos temas se remontan al último periodo del mandato de Trump. Para entonces, sus asesores clave habían aprendido a ejercer el poder con mayor eficacia y Trump había despedido a funcionarios que se resistían a algunos de sus impulsos y los había sustituido por partidarios leales. Entonces, perdió las elecciones de 2020 y tuvo que abandonar el poder.Desde que dejó el cargo, los asesores y aliados de Trump en una red de grupos bien financiados han perfeccionado políticas, creado listas de posibles funcionarios y comenzado a dar forma a un nuevo andamiaje jurídico, con lo que han sentado las bases para una segunda presidencia de Trump que esperan que comience el 20 de enero de 2025.En una declaración poco clara, dos de los funcionarios más importantes de la campaña de Trump buscaron distanciar a su equipo de campaña de algunos de los planes que desarrollan los aliados externos del expresidente, grupos liderados por antiguos altos mandos de su gobierno que siguen en contacto directo con él. La declaración calificó los informes de noticias sobre el personal y las intenciones políticas de la campaña como “puramente especulativos y teóricos”.Los planes descritos aquí se derivan de lo que Trump ha pregonado en la campaña, lo que ha aparecido en su sitio web de campaña y de entrevistas con asesores de Trump, incluido uno que habló con The New York Times a petición de la campaña.Trump quiere usar al Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios políticosSi vuelve a ganar la presidencia, Trump ha declarado que usaría el Departamento de Justicia para iniciar investigaciones en contra de sus adversarios y acusarlos de cometer delitos, incluso dijo en junio que nombraría a “un fiscal especial de verdad para ir tras” Biden y su familia. Más tarde declaró en una entrevista con Univisión que, si alguien lo desafiaba por motivos políticos, podría hacer que esa persona fuera acusada formalmente.Los aliados de Trump también han estado desarrollando un proyecto intelectual para desechar la norma posterior al Watergate sobre la independencia investigadora del Departamento de Justicia respecto a la dirección política de la Casa Blanca.Anticipándose a eso, Trump ya había violado las normas en su campaña de 2016, cuando prometió “encarcelar” a su oponente, Hillary Clinton, por usar un servidor de correo electrónico privado. Durante su presidencia, dijo en varias ocasiones a sus asesores que quería que el Departamento de Justicia presentara cargos contra sus enemigos políticos, incluidos funcionarios a quienes había despedido como James Comey, exdirector del FBI. El Departamento de Justicia abrió varias investigaciones de este tipo, pero no presentó cargos, lo cual enfureció a Trump y provocó una ruptura en 2020 con Bill Barr, su fiscal general.Se propone llevar a cabo una represión extrema de la migraciónTrump planea un ataque a la migración a una escala nunca antes vista en la historia moderna de Estados Unidos. A millones de migrantes que entraron ilegalmente en Estados Unidos se les prohibiría estar en el país o se les deportaría años o incluso décadas después de haberse establecido aquí.Reforzados por agentes reasignados de otros organismos federales de procuración de justicia, la policía estatal y la Guardia Nacional, los funcionarios del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas llevarían a cabo redadas masivas destinadas a deportar a millones de personas cada año. Se emplearían fondos militares con el propósito de construir campamentos para albergar a los detenidos. Se invocaría una ley de emergencia de salud pública para suspender las solicitudes de asilo de las personas que llegan a la frontera. Y el gobierno trataría de poner fin a la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en suelo estadounidense de padres sin estatus legal.Trump tiene planes para usar la fuerza militar estadounidense más cerca de casaMientras estaba en el cargo, Trump pensó en usar el Ejército para atacar a los cárteles de drogas en México, una idea que violaría el derecho internacional a menos que México consintiera. Desde entonces, esa idea ha recibido un respaldo republicano más amplio y Trump pretende hacerla realidad si vuelve al Despacho Oval.Aunque la Ley Posse Comitatus prohíbe en general el uso de soldados federales con fines policiales, otra ley, la Ley de Insurrección, establece una excepción. Trump quería invocar la Ley de Insurrección a fin de utilizar al Ejército para reprimir a los manifestantes después de la muerte de George Floyd a manos de la policía en 2020, pero no lo logró y la idea sigue siendo importante entre sus asistentes. Entre otras cosas, su principal asesor de migración ha dicho que invocarían la Ley de Insurrección en la frontera sur para usar soldados con la finalidad de interceptar y detener a los migrantes que ingresan a Estados Unidos de manera ilegal.Trump y sus aliados quieren un mayor control sobre la burocracia federal y la fuerza laboralTrump y sus partidarios quieren aumentar el poder que tiene el presidente sobre las agencias federales, lo cual implicaría concentrar en la Casa Blanca un mayor control sobre toda la maquinaria del gobierno.Para ello han adoptado una versión maximalista de la llamada teoría del ejecutivo unitario, según la cual el presidente tiene autoridad directa sobre toda la burocracia federal y es inconstitucional que el Congreso cree reductos de autoridad independiente en la toma de decisiones.Como parte de ese plan, Trump también pretende revivir una iniciativa del final de su presidencia para alterar las normas de servicio civil que protegen a los profesionales de carrera del gobierno, lo que le permitiría despedir a decenas de miles de trabajadores federales y remplazarlos por partidarios. Después de que el Congreso fracasó en su intento de promulgar una ley para impedir que ese cambio sucediera, el gobierno de Biden decidió redactar un reglamento para blindar a los empleados federales contra Trump. Sin embargo, dado que se trata solo de una acción ejecutiva, el próximo presidente republicano podría dejarla sin efecto de la misma manera.Los aliados de Trump quieren abogados que no lo limitenLos abogados con designación política frustraron en ocasiones los deseos de Trump al plantear objeciones legales a sus ideas y a las de sus principales asesores. Esta dinámica ha provocado una división silenciosa en la derecha, ya que los partidarios leales a Trump han llegado a ver con desdén al típico abogado de la Sociedad Federalista, en esencia, un conservador republicano de la corriente dominante.En un posible nuevo mandato, los aliados de Trump están planeando instalar de forma sistemática guardianes legales más agresivos y alineados ideológicamente, que serán más propensos a aprobar acciones contenciosas. En un sondeo de The New York Times sobre candidatos presidenciales para 2024, Trump y su equipo de campaña se negaron a responder a una serie de preguntas detalladas sobre qué límites, de haberlos, reconocería a sus poderes en una serie de asuntos bélicos, de confidencialidad y de aplicación de la ley, muchos de ellos planteados en su primer mandato.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie Savage More