The Donald Trump administration has begun its second term with an aggressive strategy focused on mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. In what has been described as the "largest mass deportation operation in history," U.S. authorities arrested 538 people and deported hundreds in just a few days. According to statements by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, these deportations were carried out using military aircraft.

Trump promised during his presidential campaign to crack down on irregular immigration. After assuming the presidency, he declared a state of national emergency on the border with Mexico and signed several immigration executive orders, including the reinstatement of the "Stay in Mexico" policy. This program requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexican territory while their applications are processed. He also ended a program from the previous administration aimed at facilitating legal avenues for those fleeing violence and political persecution.

In addition, the President temporarily suspended refugee arrivals and issued an executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. These decisions have generated mixed reactions, both within the United States and internationally. While some sectors applaud the president's heavy-handedness, others criticize these measures as violations of human rights and due process.

Another question is: Is Trump using the right strategy to solve the problem of irregular migration? His supporters may not like the answer. The strategy got off to a bad start, because a federal judge has already blocked his executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. The reason is simple: Trump's order violates the constitution.

In the face of mass deportations, there are not only doubts about the impact on the rights of illegal migrants, but something more practical: the numbers. If the current pace of deportations - around 600 people a day at best - is maintained, the Trump administration will fall short of the one million deportations figure during its term in office. This leaves a question mark over what will happen to the more than 11 million immigrants estimated to be living in the United States without documents.

Historically, mass deportations have not solved structural immigration challenges. These operations tend to focus on a limited number of people and generate a satisfying effect on the electorate and fear in migrant communities. However, they do not address the underlying causes that drive migration. Factors such as violence, poverty and lack of opportunity in countries of origin continue to be key drivers of immigration to the United States.

Another recurrent criticism of heavy-handed strategies is their impact on human rights and civil liberties. International organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have recalled that the right to seek asylum is protected by international law. The criminalization of migrants, along with raids and arrests without warrants, generates a climate of tension and social divisions.

In this context, questions arise about viable alternatives to mass deportations. One of the most discussed strategies is comprehensive immigration reform, which would address both border security and the creation of legal pathways to regularization for millions of immigrants. These reforms typically include stricter border controls, temporary work programs, and mechanisms for immigrants who meet certain requirements to obtain legal residency.

Another alternative is to invest in the economic and social development of countries of origin. International cooperation programs can help reduce the drivers of migration by providing viable alternatives for people in their places of origin. While these measures require significant investments and long-term results, they have the potential to address the problem in a more sustainable manner.

The current strategy has also reignited the debate on the role of sanctuary cities. These cities have adopted policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Proponents argue that these policies promote trust between migrant communities and local law enforcement, while detractors see them as an obstacle to immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration faces a complex task. While heavy-handedness may generate immediate results and satisfy certain sectors of its political base, it does not solve the structural problems of immigration. The lack of a comprehensive strategy could perpetuate the cycle of irregular migration, deportations and social polarization.

The future of U.S. immigration policy depends on a balance between security, human rights and economic realities. Experience shows that no strategy based solely on force can solve such a complex problem. The solution requires a multidimensional approach that addresses both the causes and consequences of migration.

With informatión from AFP