Erosion of the American Dream: Restrictive immigration policies and consequences
This article is authored by Gunwant Singh. Scholar, international relations and security studies. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
The Trump administration’s recent immigration policies mark a significant shift toward stricter enforcement and border controls, aligning with its broader objective of reducing both legal and illegal immigration. Measures such as mass deportations, expanded travel bans, and the introduction of a “self-deportation” app have been framed as necessary for national security and economic protection. However, these policies have sparked widespread debate due to their implications for undocumented immigrants, skilled professionals, and international students. A particularly concerning aspect is the administration’s reluctance to facilitate naturalisation, effectively limiting access to United States (US) citizenship. This shift not only alters the domestic socio-economic landscape but also has diplomatic repercussions, particularly for India, which has a large expatriate community in the US. The economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences of these policies raise pressing questions about the long-term viability of a restrictive immigration system.
Historically, the US has alternated between restrictive and inclusive immigration policies. The Immigration Act of 1924 imposed strict quotas, reflecting nationalist sentiments, while the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act dismantled race-based restrictions, encouraging migration from Asia and Latin America. Immigration has since played a vital role in shaping the US economy, labor force, and global influence. However, the Trump administration’s recent measures signal a return to restrictive policies, arguing that limiting immigration is essential for national security and economic stability. A key feature of this shift is the administration’s efforts to curtail naturalisation, which has traditionally been the primary pathway for immigrants to integrate fully into American society.
By imposing additional bureaucratic hurdles like longer waiting periods, higher fees, and stringent background checks the administration has made naturalisation increasingly difficult. This effectively creates a class of permanent non-citizen residents who contribute economically but lack full political and legal rights. Such restrictions could discourage skilled professionals and investors from seeking long-term residence in the US, leading to a potential loss of global talent. Moreover, these measures send conflicting messages about American values, undermining the country’s historical reputation as a nation built on immigration.
One of the administration’s most publicised initiatives is the introduction of a “self-deportation” app, designed to encourage undocumented immigrants to leave voluntarily. While presented as an efficient enforcement tool, its effectiveness remains questionable. Many undocumented immigrants may avoid using it due to fears of surveillance, legal repercussions, or data misuse. This reliance on technology for immigration enforcement raises ethical and practical concerns, particularly given the complexity of migration issues.
The administration’s intensified deportation efforts have also drawn attention, particularly regarding Indian nationals. In a notable incident, approximately 100 Indian citizens were deported via a US military aircraft on February 5, 2025, marking the fourth such deportation flight since early 2024. Reports indicate that India has agreed to accept nearly 18,000 undocumented nationals for repatriation. While the Indian government has cooperated with US authorities, large-scale deportations of this nature could strain bilateral relations, especially if perceived as overly harsh. Additionally, concerns about detention conditions and family separations have led to criticism from human rights organisations.
Beyond deportations, policy changes targeting high-skilled immigrants could have economic repercussions. The administration is considering revoking work authorisations for H-4 visa holders, who are spouses of H-1B visa workers, a category largely used by Indian professionals in the technology sector. This policy shift could discourage skilled workers from seeking employment in the US, pushing talent toward countries with more favorable immigration policies, such as Canada and Australia. Given the dependence of US technology firms on global expertise, such measures could undermine the country’s competitive edge in innovation.
The broader economic consequences extend beyond the tech industry. Many sectors including agriculture, construction, and hospitality rely heavily on immigrant labour. The removal of undocumented workers could lead to labour shortages, increased operational costs, and disruptions in supply chains. Additionally, the loss of immigrant tax contributions could strain public finances. In Texas alone, immigrant workers contributed an estimated $58 billion in taxes in 2023, a revenue stream that could diminish under stricter immigration policies.
Domestically, these policies have also raised concerns about legal oversight and due process. A high-profile case illustrating this issue involved Rasha Alawieh, a medical professor at Brown University, who was deported despite holding a valid work visa and receiving a judge’s temporary order blocking her removal. The administration’s claim that an oral directive from a judge is not legally binding has sparked debate about executive overreach and the undermining of judicial authority.
Such cases highlight potential violations of the rule of law and could set a concerning precedent for future immigration enforcement.
The administration’s proposal to expand travel restrictions further complicates the immigration landscape. Reports suggest that visa access could be restricted for individuals from 43 countries, including Russia and Belarus, with 11 nations potentially facing complete visa suspensions. This policy, reminiscent of the 2017 travel ban that primarily targeted Muslim-majority nations, could provoke diplomatic tensions and reciprocal restrictions on American travellers. Given the interconnected nature of global mobility and commerce, such measures could negatively impact US international engagement.
On the international stage, the reluctance to grant citizenship through naturalisation signals a shift in America’s approach to immigration. Naturalisation has historically been a key mechanism for integrating immigrants, fostering civic participation, and strengthening US soft power. By limiting access to citizenship, the administration risks alienating long-term residents and undermining diplomatic ties with nations that have strong expatriate communities in the United States, such as India. As India seeks to enhance protections for its diaspora, restrictions on US naturalisation could become a point of contention in bilateral negotiations.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s recent immigration policies represent a decisive move toward restriction, with profound implications for the economy, legal system, and international relations. While framed as necessary for national security and economic protection, these measures risk disrupting labour markets, eroding judicial credibility, and straining diplomatic ties. The increasing difficulty of naturalization raises further concerns, as it could create a disenfranchised population of long-term residents. As global trends shift toward stricter immigration controls, the US must carefully consider the broader consequences of these policies to maintain its economic competitiveness and uphold its historical legacy as a nation shaped by immigration.
This article is authored by Gunwant Singh. Scholar, international relations and security studies. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
