After Donald Trump’s election eight years ago, New Yorkers of all stripes rallied to the aid of immigrants, spurred by the new leader’s rhetoric on immigration and later policies.
Volunteers paired up with immigrants on required check-ins with enforcement officers. Protesters sang “This Land Is Your Land” and clogged JFK Airport to oppose to new travel restrictions on Muslims.
Houses of worship became sanctuaries to migrants fearful of deportation. High school and college students staged walkouts and touted their school a “sanctuary campus.”
“Those were heady times,” Warren Goldstein, a retired local historian, said of the activism ignited by Trump’s 2016 victory, in a city with a rich history of making room for newcomers, and where Trump lost to Hillary Clinton that year by nearly 23 points.
But with Trump’s re-election and his promises of “mass deportations” starting on “day one” of his new term, policy activists and political leaders engaged in those showdowns said in interviews to expect slightly different tactics this time around.
Instead, they said to expect more targeted legal challenges to whatever policy changes emerge. Trump and his team have already said they would move quickly and unilaterally on deportations, relying on executive orders rather than legislation. Congress hasn’t passed significant immigration reform in decades.
Wennie Chin, the senior director of community and civic engagement at the New York Immigration Coalition, also said to expect more pressure on local and state government leaders not to cooperate with immigration enforcement authorities. About 500,000 residents without permanent immigration status are estimated to live in New York City, which already has “sanctuary” policies barring local governments from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement officials. The push is underway for state-level protections.
“Trump has surrounded himself with these people that are as dangerous as he is when it comes to the issue of immigration,” said Rep. Nydia Velasquez, a Democrat representing Brooklyn and Queens, and former chair of the House Committee on Hispanic Affairs. She and others note that Trump, with more experience and the aid of a GOP-led Congress, will be better equipped to execute sweeping changes in immigration policy.
But the envisioned tactical changes also come amid new political realities in New York City, not just in Washington, D.C. New York’s ongoing migrant crisis began in 2022, when hundreds of busloads of migrants, mostly asylum-seekers, began arriving at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. In short order, the issue of border security, which had long been a concern of border states like Texas and Arizona, became an issue for New Yorkers.
In the time since, some 220,000 migrants, mainly asylum-seekers, have passed through New York City, compelling the city to open more than 200 migrant shelters across the five boroughs. The influx spurred loud pushback in community meetings and hardened views.
In a 2023 survey, 62% of local voters agreed with the view that the migrant issue could “destroy the city.” And in November’s election, even as Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris promised to “secure the borders,” voters in many of the city’s most immigrant-dense neighborhoods, including in Queens, shifted significantly toward Trump.
While Trump lost the city by 38 points overall, that was significantly better than he did in 2020, when he lost to Joe Biden in the city by 54 points.
Longtime activists and advocates, including Elora Mukherjee, a clinical professor of law at Columbia Law School and the director of the university’s Immigrants Rights Clinic, say that in addition to fierce political headwinds, they’re also fending off fatigue.
The city witnessed an enormous outpouring of civic activism during Trump’s first term, including when hundreds of thousands of Women’s March demonstrators descended on Trump Tower in Manhattan just days after his inauguration. But now, many activists worry that members of their coalition are exhausted — and at an inopportune time for their cause.
“Nobody harbors any illusions that we’re not going to be under attack,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “We are.”
Strengthening ‘sanctuary’ policies
For many local activists and attorneys who represent immigrant communities, the immediate work going forward involves strengthening laws meant to reduce local cooperation with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE.
Since the election, cities across the country have been closely examining and in some cases bolstering their so-called “sanctuary” laws.
The Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance on Nov. 19 blocking local government agencies from cooperating with federal immigration agents, and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu vowed to protect immigrant residents “in every possible way.”
The developments prompted Tom Homan, the former acting head of ICE who has been named as Trump’s incoming “border czar,” to warn officials in “sanctuary states” to “get the hell out of the way, because ICE is going to do their job.”
New York City Councilmember Robert Holden, a Queens Democrat, echoed Homan’s admonition. In a Nov. 20 letter, Holden urged Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Eric Adams, and City Council and legislative leaders to “re-evaluate and amend” sanctuary policies to allow cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies.
“It is time to prioritize public safety, restore accountability, and comply with federal law,” Holden wrote.
Some New York City activists said it was unclear how the Adams administration would respond to expected pressure from the White House under Trump. The mayor has in the past called for increased cooperation between local and federal agencies, particularly for immigrants who commit violent crimes.
“Now’s the time for our mayor and our governor to really decide what type of sanctuary city and state they want to be,” said Chin, with the New York Immigration Coalition, “and really underline the sanctuary policies and give them some teeth.”
In a statement, Adams’ spokesperson Kayla Mamelak, said “Mayor Adams has said repeatedly that we will continue to uphold our city’s sanctuary city laws, but we must also have a serious conversation about the small number of individuals who repeatedly commit violent crimes and the consequences they face, as well as fix our unsuccessful border policies.”
Meanwhile, Lieberman of the NYCLU said elected officials should take other measures, including boosting funding for immigrant legal services. “We need legal representation on steroids,” she said.
She also pushed for passage of New York for All Act, a bill in the state Legislature that would prevent local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE; and the Dignity Not Detention Act, state legislation that would prevent state, county and municipal governments from entering into contracts with ICE for the purpose of jailing immigrants.
“These are not radical proposals,” Lieberman said.
But Hochul has made plain that she would only go so far to protect immigrants in New York state without full legal status.
“Someone breaks the law, I’ll be the first one to call up ICE and say, ‘Get them out of here,'” Hochul told reporters in Queens on Tuesday, as reported by City & State New York.
The governor added that she supported letting law-abiding asylum-seekers continue with their claims, and likewise backed immigrants with Temporary Protected Status.
Lieberman said she was concerned Trump “might try to nationalize New York’s National Guard,” pointing to an instance in 1954, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower nationalized the National Guard of Arkansas in order to desegregate the state’s schools after the governor refused to do so.
“It can be done for good or for ill,” Lieberman said. “There will be litigation over this, I guarantee, if Trump tries to call the National Guard to round up New Yorkers,” or to “suppress lawful protest.”
Alina Das, a professor at NYU Law School and co-director of NYU’s Immigrant Rights Clinic, argued that additional measures can be taken by the outgoing Biden administration, including bolstering protections for immigrants who are at greater risk of being deported.
“There’s a lot of discretion that the Biden administration can exercise to process applications that have long been pending,” said Das. “They can do a lot over the next several weeks before Biden leaves office.”
Looking back in order to see ahead
A groundswell of activism emerged during the first Trump administration’s initial weeks, most visibly in response to the president’s executive order banning immigration from seven majority Muslim countries.
The implementation of the so-called “Muslim Travel Ban” prompted hundreds of attorneys, activists and elected officials to descend on JFK Airport, including Das.
“It was just a new era in terms of what we were experiencing as immigrant rights attorneys,” said Das.
The protests spread to airports across the country.
At the same time, houses of worship jumped in, bringing thousands of people into the immigrant rights movement.
“We were always recruiting volunteers,” said the Rev. Donna Schaper, who previously served as senior minister at Judson Memorial Church in the West Village. “Then volunteers were recruiting us. They would show up and say, ‘How can I help?’”
Within a year after Trump’s inauguration, Schaper said the organization went from “one or two” staffers to 16, and a battalion of volunteers “trained in how to keep deportations and detentions from happening,” in part by accompanying immigrants to their court hearings and periodic ICE check-ins.
At its peak, she said, the group had 3,000 “well trained volunteers” and was receiving checks as large as $100,000 from foundations eager to support the work.
The first Trump victory, said Goldstein, the retired historian who as Schaper’s husband saw much of the activism up close, “kicked off an era of enormous amount of grassroots organizing.”
Same challenge, against an emboldened foe
But veterans of the first Trump era acknowledge said the coming years will be markedly different.
Velasquez was one of several elected officials who became a face of “the Resistance” early on, by participating in protests and boycotting Trump’s inauguration. In 2018, Velasquez called for the abolition of ICE.
In a recent interview, Velasquez said, “we are really very, very concerned, because this time around, Donald Trump is better prepared to implement his policies.”
She noted that Homan had originated the controversial policy of family separation, which resulted in as many as 5,500 immigrant children being separated from their families before the policy was ended by court order in 2018.
She takes Homan’s recent proposal to double the number of ICE officers in New York City seriously. Six years after she proposed the idea, Velasquez said it’s no longer viable to demand the abolition of ICE.
“We could ask,” she said, “but it’s not going to happen.”
Instead, she thinks immigrant communities need to start preparing for the scenario of mass deportations, in part by “proactively engaging with immigrant rights groups, right now.”
She noted that there are complexities that could slow down the Trump administration’s agenda. These include the high cost of rounding up and detaining large numbers of people.
Velasquez cited a report from the American Immigration Council, which estimated that “deporting 1 million immigrants per year would incur an annual cost of $88 billion, with the majority of that cost going towards building detention camps.”
Additionally, Velasquez noted that some sending nations don’t accept repatriated immigrants from the U.S. government.
“These are complex processes,” said Velasquez, “so New Yorkers should not fear that they will be deported on day one after Trump’s inauguration.”
She also said activists and officials who are battle-hardened from the first Trump era can draw upon their experiences as they organize this time.
“We too are prepared,” said Velasquez. “We have the playbook.”
A primal scream … and self-care
In the weeks since Trump’s re-election, immigrant rights activists have hardly gone quiet.
At one post-election rally, a group of around 80 interfaith activists stood under the arch at Washington Square Park and lit candles, then took part in a primal scream.
It was led by Micah Busey, a minister at nearby Judson Memorial Church. Nearby teenagers took turns on their skateboards, oblivious to the commotion.
“In the next four years we will likely bring more waves of racism, sexism, Islamophobia and even xenophobia,” Nafisa Al Hafiz of the Muslim Community Network told the crowd. “Now more than ever, it is crucial that we work together.”
Days later, thousands of New Yorkers took to the streets around Central Park to voice their opposition to the incoming administration.
“We’re all standing together for a better world,” said Claudia Shacter-deChabert, a lecturer at CUNY’s School of Labor and Urban Studies.
But some acknowledge a strain.
Mukherjee said one tactic going forward had little to do with the law or politics.
“We must take care of one another to make it through another four years,” she said, noting the mental toll on so many immigrant rights lawyers and organizers during the first Trump term.
Not all activists think collective exhaustion is as bad as some reports indicate.
Naomi Braine, a sociologist at CUNY and longtime activist, said “resignation and retreat” was largely confined to people “who have never been engaged with sustained forms of action and resistance” and hadn’t affected the immigrant rights movement as a whole.
“People are exhausted but that doesn’t mean they have collapsed or surrendered,” said Braine.