Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Kent Jenkins Jr., a former political reporter from The Washington Post turned communications consultant, explore what they call the “immigration paradox” at the heart of US politics. Donald Trump returned to office in 2025 on a clear promise: to secure the southern border and carry out large-scale deportations. While his administration succeeded in sharply reducing illegal crossings, public support declined as enforcement moved from the border into American communities. The discussion traces how fears and reality collide, producing a volatile public response.

A working policy that lost support

Jenkins begins by outlining an apparent contradiction. Trump did what he said he would do. Border crossings dropped dramatically, with apprehensions falling by roughly 90% in early 2025 — reaching levels not seen in decades. Yet approval for his immigration policy fell just as sharply. Support declined from 59% at the start of Trump’s term to 39% within ten months.

Observers cannot explain this reversal simply by partisan opposition or isolated incidents. Even before the highly publicized shootings of protesters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, public opinion had already shifted. Democratic messaging alone did not drive the change, either. Instead, the explanation lies deeper, in how Americans think about immigration itself.

As Jenkins puts it, Trump’s policy became “deeply, deeply, deeply unpopular” despite its consistency and measurable results. The issue is not whether the policy worked at the border, but how people experienced it beyond it.

Two issues, not one

Crucially, Americans do not see immigration as a single issue. They distinguish sharply between border security and internal enforcement.

At the border, migrants appear as a large, anonymous group — what Jenkins describes as an “undifferentiated mass.” This framing raises citizen concerns about national security, economic competition and the rule of law. Many Americans, including legal immigrants, support stricter controls in this context.

Inside the country, however, the picture changes. Migrants are no longer distant figures but neighbors, coworkers and parents of children in local schools. They are individuals with names, families and stories. When enforcement targets these individuals, public sentiment shifts from anxiety to empathy.

This shift became visible when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents deployed in cities across the United States. Arrests carried out in public spaces, often by masked officers, triggered widespread backlash. Jenkins says many Americans find these scenes “shocking and appalling,” not because the law has changed, but because its application now feels personal.

The human mind and the “group–individual” divide

To explain this pattern, Jenkins turns to history and social science. He highlights a 1930s study by sociologist Richard LaPiere, conducted during a period of overt anti-Chinese discrimination in the US. Although 90% of surveyed businesses claimed they would refuse service to Chinese customers, LaPiere and his Chinese companions were denied service only once in hundreds of real-world interactions.

The gap between stated attitudes and actual behavior reveals a persistent feature of human psychology. People often express hostility toward abstract groups while responding more generously to individual members of those groups they encounter directly.

Economist Thomas Schelling famously noted that “the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.” Psychologist Paul Slovic similarly showed that people are more likely to take moral action when they focus on a single identifiable individual rather than a large, faceless population.

Jenkins frames this as a tension between general rules and particular cases. Laws operate at the level of categories, but human judgment often operates at the level of stories. When the two collide, sympathy for individuals can override support for broad policies.

Political fallout and strategic uncertainty

This paradox has brought significant political consequences. Public backlash contributed to the resignation of the Secretary of Homeland Security and forced a partial retreat from aggressive enforcement tactics in some cities. Yet the broader policy direction remains uncertain.

Polling reflects this ambiguity. While a majority of Americans believe the immigration crackdown has gone too far, they do not see a clear alternative. Democrats have not consolidated support for their position, and Republicans retain a slight advantage on the issue. A large share of the public remains undecided, suggesting that opinions are still fluid.

Jenkins argues that both parties have struggled to grasp the full implications of the paradox. Republican policies resonate at the border but falter in communities. Democratic responses, such as calls to abolish ICE, risk alienating voters who still prioritize enforcement in principle.

“The jury is still out,” Jenkins concludes. Public opinion depends heavily on how immigration is framed. When presented as a matter of national security, enforcement gains support. When presented through individual cases, it provokes resistance.

The immigration paradox reflects a deeper feature of political life: the tension between abstraction and experience. Americans can simultaneously demand order at the border and compassion at home because these impulses arise from different ways of seeing the same issue. The future of immigration policy will depend less on ideology than on which of these perspectives dominates public perception at any given moment.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.