The Immigration Enforcement Ratchet: A 15-Year Perspective on Policy Continuity

Immigration enforcement systems persist across administrations through institutional momentum, creating a "ratchet effect" that transcends partisan politics and electoral cycles.

I want to begin this analysis by acknowledging something important: I'm writing this not out of spite or criticism, but out of a desire to set reasonable expectations and encourage thoughtful reflection about what an effective response might look like when it comes to the understandable outrage over current immigration policies.

There's no question that many of the Trump administration's policies shock the moral conscience of many Americans, and I'm not seeking in any way to diminish or belittle that response. What I hope to do, gently and respectfully, is to remind us that the systems we see in place today—even if they are being exploited, pushed to their limits, or beyond the rule of law—were not built solely by the Trump administration, either the current one or the previous one.

Every four to eight years, America experiences what appears to be a dramatic shift in immigration policy. Campaign promises are made, executive orders are signed, and media coverage suggests that everything is about to change. Yet when you track the actual data on arrests, detentions, and deportations across multiple administrations, a different story emerges—one that challenges the conventional narrative about how immigration policy actually works in practice.

Over the past 15 years of researching and documenting America's immigration enforcement system, I've observed a predictable pattern that repeats itself with remarkable consistency across presidential administrations. The pattern goes this: when Republicans are in power, Democrats express outrage at immigration enforcement policies. When Democrats are in power, those same policies often remain in place or even expand, while criticism from the Democratic base is met with explanations about political pragmatism and the need for compromise. As a result, many in the immigrant rights movement experience what they refer to as a cycle of outrage and betrayal.

I’m not necessarily taking a position on whether those evolving strategies are appropriate. Electoral politics in this country is tricky business, and I have never been involved—have never been interested in being involved—in electoral politics at that level. I am certain that there are considerations that are well beyond my area of expertise.

What I'm trying to avoid here is a kind of myopic understanding of this moment in history. I recognize that this analysis challenges common assumptions about political parties and immigration policy in ways that may make some readers uncomfortable. However, from a research perspective, I believe that confronting reality with data is more important than maintaining comfortable narratives.

The Sticky Persistence of Deportation Infrastructure

What makes this cycle particularly entrenched is that immigration enforcement has become locked into place through what researchers call a "ratchet effect"—policies and systems that move in one direction but rarely come back the other way. The expansion of immigration enforcement infrastructure creates fiscal obligations, staffing commitments, and contractual arrangements that become increasingly difficult to dismantle.

Consider the Biden administration's record. While it terminated some detention contracts due to civil rights concerns, it simultaneously opened one of the largest private detention centers in the country in Pennsylvania and laid the groundwork for many more detention contracts before Trump was inaugurated.

Relatedly, the Biden administration deported 271,480 people in 2024, with 203,220 deportations of immigrants without criminal convictions and 68,270 deportations of those with criminal convictions. This means that nearly 75% of deportations targeted people without criminal histories. The administration also implemented the Circumvention of Legal Pathways policy that dramatically cut access to asylum, including for people already in the country, paving the way for an upward trend in asylum denials that continues to today.

This enforcement expansion didn't begin with Trump or even Obama. As legal scholar Daniel Kanstroom documents in Deportation Nation, the recent foundation was laid by bipartisan legislation like the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996, signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. This law dramatically expanded the grounds for deportation and created much of the legal framework that enables today's enforcement system.

Relatedly, the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, exemplifies this pattern. During the Obama administration, the program expanded significantly. When Biden campaigned for president, he promised to end the program entirely. Yet once in office, his administration adopted a position of what I referred to at the time as a policy of equilibrium: no new agreements would be signed, but existing agreements would largely remain in place.

These examples illustrate precisely how the ratchet effect operates in practice. Even when an administration takes some steps to reduce enforcement—such as terminating problematic contracts—the underlying infrastructure and legal framework remain intact and often expand in other ways. The Biden administration's simultaneous closure of some facilities while opening others, its maintenance of high deportation rates despite campaign promises, and its implementation of asylum restrictions that would later facilitate Trump's policies all demonstrate how enforcement systems move forward almost independently of political rhetoric. Once detention beds are built, deportation quotas established, and restrictive legal precedents set, they become the baseline from which future administrations operate, making it far easier to expand enforcement than to meaningfully scale it back.

This persistence reflects what Douglas Massey and his colleagues identify in Beyond Smoke and Mirrors as institutional inertia and bureaucratic momentum. Immigration enforcement agencies develop internal logics and workforce commitments that outlive any individual presidency. Detention facilities require multi-year contracts, enforcement agents need employment, and bureaucratic structures maintain their own institutional priorities regardless of changing political leadership.

I have not held back in my research-driven criticism of the Trump administration’s policies, from attacking immigration attorneys, implementing racial preferences in the refugee resettlement system, firing immigration judges for political reasons, covering up human rights abuses, violating a federal judge’s explicit orders, and many other unlawful and un-American actions.

But one thing I want to add is that I don't think criticisms of the Trump administration or Stephen Miller and the political appointees who are driving these policies necessarily need to extend to every single Republican. I believe that there are some levelheaded Republicans out there who actually would like to work across party ideological lines to uphold those core values that make America a special place—an aspirational place where families and children and people from all backgrounds can thrive in community.

Have the Courage to Recognize Patterns and Challenge Our Assumptions

For those engaged in immigrant rights advocacy, including people who are newly outraged or involved, understanding these dynamics is crucial. The cycle suggests that sustained evaluation of policies across administrations may be more productive than episodic outrage tied to electoral cycles.

For those who support robust immigration enforcement, it's important to recognize the substantial role that both parties have played in advancing and maintaining enforcement infrastructure, rather than portraying Democrats as advocates of "open borders." This simply isn’t true. Similarly, for those who believe in protecting immigrant rights, Democrats are hardly justified in claiming moral superiority on this policy question.

The immigration enforcement system we see today represents decades of bipartisan policy development. While there are real differences between administrations in areas like family separation policies and asylum procedures, the overall infrastructure and scope of enforcement tends to remain remarkably stable or continue expanding regardless of which party controls the White House.

This is not to say that both parties are identical in substance and rhetoric: they aren’t. Democrats do not usually adopt vilifying, sensationalist language to describe immigrants. And in recent years, Republicans have pushed outrageous immigration policies further on their own than they did in partnership with Democrats.

Most importantly, for people experiencing outrage at current immigration policies, it's essential to understand that this is not solely the result of the current administration. The patterns we're witnessing today have deep roots and reflect systemic dynamics that transcend any single presidency. This understanding doesn't diminish the legitimacy of moral outrage, it simply provides a more complete picture of how we arrived at this moment and what kinds of sustained efforts might be needed to create meaningful change.

I want to emphasize that I don't believe it's an effective strategy—or even the right thing to do—to simply ignore all of the concerns that people have about immigration or to dismiss them out of hand without having purposeful conversations with good faith actors. It's appropriate to recognize that there have been moments in the political history of our country where Democrats have had some pretty damaging ideas about immigration, just as Republicans have had some constructive ideas about immigration policy.

I understand that presenting this analysis may ruffle feathers and challenge deeply held beliefs about political parties and their approaches to immigration. These observations may make readers uncomfortable, particularly those who have strong partisan attachments. However, I believe that honest research requires us to follow the data wherever it leads, even when it complicates our preferred political narratives. Only by understanding how these systems actually function can we have meaningful conversations about immigration policy that go beyond electoral cycles—conversations that include good faith actors from across the political spectrum who share a commitment to making America a place where all families can thrive.

Support Public Scholarship

Just a reminder that this newsletter is only possible because of your support. If you believe in keeping this work free and open to the public, consider becoming a paid subscriber. You can read more about the mission and focus of this newsletter and learn why, after three years, I finally decided to offer a paid option. If you already support this newsletter financially, thank you.

Photo by David Everett Strickler on Unsplash