Trump immigration policies set the tone for most of the GOP presidential field

WASHINGTON — Most of the candidates in this year’s 2024 Republican race for the presidential nomination mirror hard-line immigration policies set by the front-runner, former President Donald Trump.

What were once considered far-right policies are now common talking points among the GOP candidates. That includes support for building a wall along the Southern U.S.-Mexico border and ending birthright citizenship for American-born children of undocumented immigrants — a protection that is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Candidates also have argued for the reinstatement of Title 42, a pandemic-era immigration policy that immediately expelled migrants and barred them from claiming asylum. The policy was ended by the Biden administration earlier this year, but GOP candidates have argued that it should be revived because of the high number of migrants claiming asylum.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seen an increase in encounters with migrants at the U.S. Southern border, according to its data. In fiscal year 2022, there were nearly 2.4 million encounters with migrants, and in fiscal year 2023, which ended on Oct. 1, there were nearly 2.5 million encounters with migrants at the Southern border.

GOP candidates calling for increased border security have also pointed to the opioid crisis and illicit fentanyl that is smuggled into the U.S. More than 150 people die each day from overdoses related to fentanyl, a topic in the most recent GOP presidential debate.

Most fentanyl — about 90% — is seized by border officials at ports of entry, and more than 70% of people smuggling those drugs are U.S. citizens, according to James Mandryck, a CBP official.

Here’s where the Republican presidential candidates stand on U.S. immigration policy:

Former President Donald J. Trump

Trump’s current policies build from his first term, such as expanding the “Muslim travel ban,” which was an executive order he signed in 2017 that banned travel to seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Courts granted immigration attorneys who sued a nationwide temporary injunction on the ban, but in 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the executive order, which included barring travelers from Venezuela and North Korea. President Joe Biden rescinded the travel ban.

At an October campaign rally in Iowa, Trump said he would expand that Muslim ban to also include an “ideological screening” of immigrants coming into the U.S. and will ban anyone who is a “communist, Marxist or fascist” who is sympathetic to “radical Islamic terrorists” and people who do not “like our religion.”

The U.S. does not have a state religion and was founded on the principles of religious freedom.

At a late November campaign rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump stated he would undertake mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. There are roughly 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. Trump has also said he wants to place those immigrants in camps as they await deportation.

Trump has pledged to reinstate the “remain in Mexico” policy from his administration and send U.S. military to the Southern border.

The “remain in Mexico” policy forced asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their applications were being processed, which many immigration advocates criticized because it put those asylum seekers in harm. The Biden administration tried to get rid of the policy, but federal courts kept it in place until the Supreme Court ruled that the White House had the authority to end it.

Trump would also end a policy used by U.S. enforcement agencies that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S., rather than be held at a detention facility.

Trump in addition has said during the campaign that he would end birthright citizenship through an executive order. Trump made the same promise while he was in office, but never acted on it.

Trump’s immigration policies during his first term were met with outcry from Democrats and advocates. They also opposed his attempts to end an Obama administration program that protects undocumented children brought into the country, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Federal courts halted the ending of DACA.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

DeSantis has said he supports policies similar to Trump’s, such as wanting to end birthright citizenship, reestablish the remain in Mexico policy and send U.S. military to the border.

During a trip to the border in the summer, DeSantis also backed mass deportations, allowing for the use of deadly force against suspected drug traffickers at the border and the indefinite detention of migrant youth — a violation of the Flores agreement that says undocumented youth cannot be detained for more than 20 days.

In that speech in Eagle Pass, Texas, DeSantis compared the border to a home invasion.

“If someone was breaking into your house, you would repel them with the use of force, right?” he said. “But yet if they have drugs, these backpacks, and they’re going in, and they’re cutting through an enforced structure, we’re just supposed to let ’em in? You know, I say use force to repel them. If you do that one time, they will never do that again.”

DeSantis also wants to continue building the border wall and use funds to do so by taxing money that migrants send home to Mexico.

In the third GOP presidential debate, DeSantis reiterated he would handle the U.S. – Mexico border by sending the military there and would authorize the use of deadly force for anyone crossing the border without authorization.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley

Haley said she would handle the border by ending trade relations with China, because the chemicals used to make fentanyl are shipped from China and made in Mexico by cartels. She would add 20,000 more border patrol and ICE agents and pull federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with the federal government over immigration enforcement.

States that have sanctuary cities and counties include California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont and Washington.

Also like Trump, Haley said she would end a U.S. policy that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S. rather than be held at a detention facility. Immigration courts currently have a more than 2-million-case backlog.

During the third GOP presidential debate, Haley took a swipe at the Biden administration’s move to reinstate Temporary Protected Status for nearly 500,000 Venezuelans, allowing them to live and work in the United States.

“It’s just going to have more of them come,” she said of Venezuelans, and instead advocated for placing sanctions on Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy

Ramaswamy, who is one of the candidates with no government experience, does not have an immigration platform on his campaign site, but has called for sending the U.S. military to the border.

On various interviews with Fox News, he’s alluded to sending U.S. troops into Mexico if the country does not get drug cartels under control. “We will come in and get the job done ourselves,” he said in a Fox News interview in September.

He has also called for the ending of birthright citizenship, even though he was born in Ohio to parents who were both noncitizens. His mother later became a citizen, but his father is not. He has also called for the mass deportation of U.S. citizens who were born from undocumented parents.

Ramaswamy has called for gutting H-1B visa programs for temporary workers, even though, he, a former pharmaceutical executive, and his own company have used them, as reported by Politico. H-1B visas allow U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in tech and other specialized jobs.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

Christie does not have any information on his immigration stance on his official website, but in debates and interviews he has stressed the way to handle the fentanyl crisis is to secure the Southern border and to treat addiction as a disease, such as the need for treatment centers.

In the most recent GOP presidential debate, he said he wants to increase technology at ports of entry and increase the number of border officials. Christie said if he is elected president, he would sign an executive order to send National Guard members to ports of entry.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

While the former governor did not qualify for the most recent GOP presidential debate, he has one mention on his campaign’s website of immigration. He says he backs state-based visas.

“A one-size-fits-all approach does not adequately serve America’s varied industries and regional economies,” according to his campaign website.

The policy would allow states to design their own non-immigrant visa criteria, such as fees, employment requirements and renewal processes for visas.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum

During an interview with Forbes, Burgum said he supports sending the National Guard to the U.S. Southern border, which is something he’s done as governor. During his time in office, he also signed into law the Office of Legal Immigration to address workforce challenges in North Dakota.

Burgum has also acknowledged challenges to seasonal agriculture workers and tech employees and the “red tape” in U.S. immigration law.

Pastor and entrepreneur Ryan Binkley

Binkley is the CEO of a merger and acquisitions advisory firm and a senior pastor at the Create Church based in Dallas, Texas.

On his campaign website, Binkley stated he would reorganize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to prioritize border security. He supports physical barriers along the Southern border and also wants to end sanctuary cities as well as the current program that allows asylum seekers to remain in the U.S. while they await their immigration hearings.

Binkley outlined his plan for border security that — if approved by Congress — would authorize $10 billion until fiscal year 2028 for technology at ports of entry and provide $25 billion in barriers and technology until fiscal year 2031.

Binkley would also allow DACA recipients to be eligible for a conditional permanent residence status for up to 10 years. Under his plan, those DACA recipients could become lawful permanent residents if they obtain a college or graduate degree, serve in the U.S. military for three years or are employed and working for four years. He would also extend in-state tuition for DACA recipients.

Binkley would also extend a legal pathway to citizenship for some TPS holders who have been continually present in the U.S. for three years as of March 2021. It would extend to TPS holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, but the cutoff date would not include those from Venezuela, Afghanistan, Haiti and Ukraine.

He has also called for a “Dignity Plan,” for undocumented immigrants, who would be required to pass a background check, pay any taxes owed, pay fines that total to $5,000 over seven years, and remain in good standing.

Those who complete the program would have two pathways to remain legally in the U.S. The first path allows those who complete the “Dignity Plan” to apply every five years for a lawful status and the second path allows for a lawful permanent resident status to those who learn English, pass a civics test and participate in volunteer work.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson is naming the white men he says are pulling the right toward white nationalism and dictatorship, and he says some of them are close to Vice President JD Vance.

In a lengthy Substack essay published Wednesday, Erickson accused a small, well-funded group of men of quietly working their way into conservative think tanks and church organizations.

"You might think it does not affect you, but, in time, you will see their efforts in your church pews, in your kids’ brains, and in your politicians’ mouths," Erickson wrote on X. "It begins with shampoo."

At the center of the network, Erickson explained, is Charles Haywood, who made his fortune selling shampoo before selling his Indianapolis hair-care company. Haywood wrote a manifesto describing a future government that would not be democratic and would bar women from choosing careers over family, Erickson reported.

Erickson cited reporting that Haywood's foundation has given $390,500 to the Claremont Institute since 2022. He also tied Haywood to a men's fraternal order that he says includes Claremont's president and the chief executive of the venture firm New Founding.

Erickson argued the ideas have reached the vice president's orbit. He noted Vance blurbed "Unhumans," a book by right-wing activist Jack Posobiec that Erickson said holds up dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet as models for dealing with the left. He also wrote that Haywood's foundation funds American Moment, a staffing pipeline he said was founded with Vance's support to place young conservatives in administration jobs.

"Unfortunately, the Vice President keeps all of it within arm's reach," Erickson wrote.

Erickson also accused Vance of refusing to forcefully denounce antisemites on the right, including followers of white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes.

The criticism follows conservative writer Rod Dreher's claim that Vance ended their friendship after Dreher urged him to draw that line. Dreher, who had warned last fall that Fuentes' influence was spreading among young GOP staffers, has said he doesn't believe Vance is racist or antisemitic.

On X, Erickson summarized his findings.

"A group of white guys have subtly inserted themselves into conservative institutions and church organizations," he wrote. "To varying degrees, they embrace white nationalism, antisemitism, and even Nazi sympathies. They are getting added to conservative institutional boards, attempting to purge churches, and are desperate to indoctrinate young conservatives into fascist ideology."

Erickson's essay quickly split the right, with even MAGA Fox News host Mark Levin urging his followers to read it.

"Very important piece. Read the whole thing and share it," Levin wrote on X.

Figures with long ties to white nationalism fired back, seizing on Erickson's opening description of "a group of white guys."

Kevin DeAnna, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center identified as a longtime writer for the white nationalist site VDARE under a pen name, defended the phrase.

"Every meaningful advance in human history has been done by a [sic] 'a group of white guys,'" DeAnna wrote.

Scott Greer, a former Daily Caller editor the SPLC has tied to white nationalist circles, took a shot at Erickson's weight.

"I guess Erick prefers to be identified as 'fat' rather than 'white,'" Greer wrote.

Patrick Casey, who led the white supremacist group Identity Evropa and its successor before it disbanded in 2020, questioned Erickson's focus.

"Do you ever attack the left?" Casey asked.

The exposé comes as Vance faces scrutiny over a line he used to deny Republicans are racist, and as critics accuse him of accommodating white nationalists.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

A city council meeting was interrupted when Philadelphia City Hall evacuated after officials found a suspicious package on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

LiveNOW from Fox and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the bomb squad responded to the scene and over 2,500 employees were forced to leave the facility.

"We are currently being evacuated from Philadelphia City Hall. Happened during City Council meeting. Chambers is being evacuated. Possibly a suspicious package has been found," Fox29's Chris O'Connell reported on X.

A spokesperson for the mayor's office confirmed the evacuation to CBS News. A K-9 unit reportedly discovered the suspicious package.

Authorities cleared the scene by early afternoon.

The Trump administration will be back in federal court Friday fighting to end a lawsuit that has kept its controversial $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund frozen — without ever agreeing to swear the fund is truly finished, according to a new analysis.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who indefinitely blocked the fund in June, will hear the government's bid to dismiss the case in Virginia, but her ruling offered the administration an off-ramp, reported MS NOW's Fallon Gallagher.

"When Brinkema blocked the fund, she gave the government an opportunity to declare — under penalty of perjury — that it would not move forward with the fund in any way, shape or form in the future," Gallagher wrote. "If they did that, she indicated she would likely dismiss the case."

The government never filed that declaration. Instead, Attorney General Todd Blanche posted an unsigned rescission notice on social media in August, stating that the fund's founding order "is rescinded and shall have no force or effect" and that "there is no Fund."

But the wording, plaintiffs point out, is entirely present tense.

Blanche's rescission order describes the fund's status today without ever committing that a similar fund, under a different name, couldn't be revived later.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which brought the lawsuit, argues that Blanche's order gives away the game.

"It's very clear that this administration had no interest in halting the fund," she told MS NOW. "They have halted the fund because of the court order that's in place blocking the fund." She said the DOJ's dismissal push is part of a broader pattern of avoiding "accountability from the courts and from the people."

The Justice Department maintains the issue is moot, telling the court that officials have said "countless times" — publicly, in filings and in sworn congressional testimony — that the fund is dead. Government lawyers wrote they're seeking dismissal "not because the Fund will continue (it will not)," but on narrower jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs, including a former Jan. 6 prosecutor, aren't buying the semantics.

"This present-tense wordsmithing assuredly does not affirm, under penalty of perjury," that the fund won't proceed "in any manner, or under any name," they wrote in a filing — noting that both Trump and Blanche have said they believe people affected by "weaponization" deserve compensation.

Blanche's August posts also sought to narrow a separate IRS immunity deal shielding Trump, his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization from existing audits — but that clarification was unsigned, meaning the original, far broader immunity agreement may still stand.

If Brinkema grants the dismissal, both fights — the fund and the immunity deal — could lose their last legal check.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}