ACE

Tag: Mexico

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    Trump’s Tariffs: Key Updates and Ongoing Debate

    One of President Trump’s myriad “first-day” promises, the plan to leverage tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China drew attention on the campaign trail. Two weeks into his second term, the campaign promise came to fruition via three consecutive executive orders, sparking economic debate and what some are calling a trade war with neighboring countries. 

    The Executive Orders

    On February first, the White House released an emergency memo announcing new tariffs as a means to combat “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs”. The declaration alluded to executive orders from the same day which invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. Collectively, these orders levied 25% tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on all goods from China. The first order carves out a smaller 10% tariff on energy resources imported from Canada to limit domestic energy shortages.

    Diplomatic Standoff and Temporary Delay

    Just before the tariffs were set to take effect, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a 30-day delay, agreeing to several conditions. The 30-day window sets a tight deadline for implementing the following measures, with the potential for future U.S. tariffs lingering in the case of failed implementation:

    Canada:

    • Appointing a Fentanyl Czar: Canada will designate a high-level official responsible for coordinating efforts to combat fentanyl production and distribution.
    • Designation of Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations: This move aims to enhance legal frameworks for tackling organized crime.
    • Intelligence Sharing and Funding: Canada will implement an intelligence directive targeting fentanyl and organized crime, supported by substantial funding.
    • Border Security Enhancements: Canada has pledged to bolster its border security measures to prevent illegal crossings and drug smuggling.

    Mexico:

    • Deployment of National Guard: Mexico will send 10,000 National Guard troops to its northern border to prevent drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
    • Cooperation on Weapons Trafficking: Mexico will work jointly with the U.S. to curb the trafficking of weapons into Mexico.

    China did not negotiate a delay, and instead retaliated immediately with its own tariffs on American energy and agricultural imports. China also filed an official dispute in the World Trade Organization.

    During negotiations for the 30-day-delay, Canada also retaliated with its own tariffs on U.S. goods. On February 4th, Prime Minister Trudeau implemented a CA$155 billion tariff package that will impact myriad products including steel and plastic, household appliances, and coffee. Mexico has not yet proposed retaliatory tariffs. 

    Prospective Impacts

    The Trump administration’s use of tariffs is not new; in his first term, President Trump levied considerable tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, impacting China, India, the European Union, and other trade partners. However, President Trump’s recent executive orders have drawn increased attention for their novel scope. This is the first time in American history that a sitting President has invoked IEEPA to leverage tariffs, bypassing the formal investigation process required under other tariff-related laws like Section 232. Supporters emphasize that the use of IEEPA allows President Trump to act more efficiently in light of the pressing opioid crisis, while critics warn that using IEEPA to implement tariffs risks unchecked executive authority. 

    Economically, some experts warn that this round of tariffs could raise consumer prices significantly more than the tariffs from the last Trump administration due to their expanded scope, targeting of consumer goods, and ongoing inflation. A report from the Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs will function as a hidden tax, potentially costing households hundreds of dollars annually. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the tariffs “the beginning of a golden age of higher costs for American families”, warning that they would strain relations with allies and worsen supply chain issues. On the other hand, some argue that Trump’s tariff strategy has already succeeded in forcing Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table, leading to unprecedented commitments to address border security and the drug trade. They emphasize that the proposed tariffs were a strategic move to force cooperation from neighboring countries on pressing issues, despite the short-term economic cost. 

    Will the Tariffs Actually Be Imposed?

    While the 30-day delay provides an opportunity for Canada and Mexico to fulfill their commitments, President Trump has stated that he fully intends to impose tariffs if they fail to act decisively. Moreover, on February 13th, President Trump signed a memo calling for research on retaliatory tariffs, signaling that the White House is preparing to impose additional tariffs on nations like Canada and China that initially retaliated with tariffs of their own.