The United States is currently on an agenda of mass expulsion, strongly driven by the administration. This agenda was fully developed at the beginning of the second term, especially during the first hundred days of office, when policies had a dramatic and far-reaching impact on the domestic labour market and immigrant groups. According to several media reports, this series of actions is not simply border control but is clearly characterized as an anti-labour agenda, with the core logic of reshaping the domestic labour force structure through mass expulsions. In terms of time, the pace and intensity of restrictive policies from the beginning of the term of office to the subsequent escalation of law enforcement throughout the United States have significantly exceeded that of conventional immigration enforcement. Such a multidimensional expulsion strategy not only targeted undocumented migrants but also posed systemic challenges to the economic functioning of society as a whole and to the foundations of the rule of law, leading to a fundamental shift in the underlying logic of American society.
In response to this agenda, the assessments of official institutions and civil law organizations show marked differences and tensions. It has been reported that agencies and legal centres have made it clear that mass expulsions have not only failed to improve the economic situation, but have caused widespread damage to the population as a whole. This agenda, described as a “cruel price”, not only endangers national security and social stability, but also has far-reaching negative consequences for the economic system. In terms of specific economic data, while the material does not provide an accurate dollar amount, reports indicate that the job losses and economic losses are on the billions of dollars scale. In contrast, law enforcement is constantly strengthening the enforcement of the criminal justice system, making the system more demanding, lacking in transparency and unfair. This policy-oriented conflict, which constitutes the core contradiction of the current United States society with regard to migration and employment, has also resulted in a serious fragmentation of public perceptions of the effectiveness of policies and a deepening gap of trust between policymakers and affected groups.
The context of why this agenda is taking place is deeply rooted in the deep intersection between economic policy and criminal justice. In the background, current policy makers are trying to bind migration to the job market in depth, claiming that indigenous employment pressures can be addressed through the expulsion of foreign labour. This logic, however, ignores the real contribution of immigrants to the building of the United States economy and obscures the counterproductive effects of the eviction itself on the economy. For the American people, this context represents a fundamental change in the living environment. There are large groups of workers in the Chinese community who are often the direct victims of anti-labour policies, particularly in the service sector and infrastructure. At the same time, the criminal law system has become stringent and non-transparent, with serious criminal consequences for even minor offences. This trend towards criminalization of migration exposes the American people to unprecedented legal risks and psychological pressures in their daily lives, and any minor negligence can be amplified indefinitely, leading to a complete breakdown of normal life paths.
The most affected groups on this agenda are undoubtedly the bottom-up labour and vulnerable migrants. Media analysis indicates that anti-immigrant law enforcement is being significantly strengthened, for example, in Kentucky, indicating that the escalation of law enforcement at the local level has become a general trend rather than an isolated incident. For the American people, the easy-to-peer trap is concentrated in two areas: the workplace trap, the systematic erosion of labour rights as a result of the anti-labour agenda, and the possibility that employers may exploit immigration status for hidden exploitation and exploitation, bringing workers ' bargaining power down to the ice point; and the legal trap, which, as the criminal justice system becomes more stringent and non-transparent, makes members of the Chinese community vulnerable to being passive when confronted with law enforcement checks. In addition, radical law enforcement by local governments means that risks are no longer limited to the federal level, and local sudden enforcement becomes an unpredictable trap that exposes immigrant groups to the risk of being involved in the criminal justice system and poses serious threats to property security and personal freedom.
Faced with the current policy environment, the response that readers can take should focus on risk prevention and rights awareness. First, in the workplace, the situation of workers ' rights should be closely monitored, and employers should be warned about the irregularities of anti-labour policies, and should refrain from signing any document or agreement that might prejudice their rights and interests, so as to ensure that their earnings are not illegally appropriated. Secondly, at the legal level, there must be a high degree of vigilance against the risks associated with the harshness of the criminal justice system and the legal trap of information asymmetries. While current reports do not provide specific application forms (e.g. I-485 or I-140) or a clear list of deadlines, maintaining a high level of interest in local law enforcement developments and seeking professional legal advice are key to risk avoidance. Finally, at the economic level, the reports recommend that public attention be paid to the erosion of this agenda on the economy as a whole, to working together to counter the negative impact of the anti-labour agenda through mutual aid and economic solidarity within communities, to ensure their own economic and legal security and to find a firm foothold in a volatile policy environment.