In just the past few weeks, the second administration of Pres. Donald Trump has issued a barrage of executive orders and efforts — as long promised — around immigration enforcement as well as sweeping attempts to upturn rights promised in the U.S. Constitution, such as birth-right citizenship. Most recently his pick for longtime South Dakota governor and former lawmaker, Kristi Noem, as the 8th Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, has stirred concerns from some groups, because of her support for Trump’s harsh immigration policies. Trump has said Noem will be “very strong” on border security, but some civil rights groups are calling out her past statements such as that immigrant border crossings amounted to an “invasion” of the U.S.

For one view on Noem’s confirmation and on what’s happened over the past several weeks, the Sampan spoke with Martin Kim, director of immigration advocacy at the nonprofit group Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC. Kim was previously deputy director of policy and legislative affairs in the New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. The interview was conducted by phone and has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Sampan: Let’s first talk about DHS, which employs around a quarter million people, and how it could affect immigration policy. I think a lot of people might have forgotten about INS, or Immigration and Naturalization Services, which used to take on that role. But in the early 2000s, immigration services were moved under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. Could you briefly give some context here?
Kim: … What you’re referring to is the fact that DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, is a relatively new department in the federal government, as created in the early 2000s in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, and it encompasses a lot of different sub agencies. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is under Homeland Security, and, of course, the three immigration-related sub-agencies, as well. So, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE; Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, as well as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or U.S.C.I.S.

Sampan: And what are your main concerns with the confirmation of Noem to head that department?
Kim: Our position is that Kristi Noem has neither the qualifications nor the moral temperament (to lead the department.) Her only experience, really, in immigration, is in parroting the anti-immigrant conspiracy theories of Trump and his anti-immigrant allies. And we know that she also will not act as a check, or even as an adviser, really, to the president. She had once said, for example, that she was against the “Muslim ban,” but once Trump was elected, quickly changed her tune. She became all for Muslim ban. She’s engaged in a lot of fear mongering and spreading of baseless conspiracy theories taken almost word for word from the president. And, generally, you know, the Department of Homeland Security secretary is supposed to advise the president. Of course, the president is the boss at the end of the day, but the secretary uses whatever knowledge, whatever experience they have to advise and then to implement, ultimately, the priorities of the president. But (we are concerned) she’s just going to do what Trump tells her to do. And what we’ve seen of Trump in the second administration shows that that’s very dangerous.

Sampan: … This position is potentially going to have a lot of sway in the court of public opinion, too, right? How could that affect, say, Chinese immigrants, with all the tensions with China, or, as you mentioned, Muslim or Arab Americans?
Kim: …. We’re obviously very concerned about the use of (anti-immigrant) rhetoric, the use of the fallacious link between immigrants and national security, and we’ll continue to monitor and push back against that rhetoric…

Sampan: Could you talk about the executive order around birthright citizenship and its legal challenges and whether you think it could ultimately go anywhere?
Kim: I can’t predict the future, but when it comes to legal judgments, what I can say is that it is our strong belief that … it is simply a fact that an executive order cannot overturn the Constitution. And these kinds of attacks are attacks that are not new. In fact, the seminal case on birthright citizenship comes out of attacks in the 1800s against Chinese immigrants in particular. In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled, “Well, sorry, people who don’t believe that Chinese immigrants who are born here can be U.S. citizens, that’s not what the 14th Amendment says.”
Now is there a possibility that some court may rule erroneously that that is not the case. Of course, there’s always that possibility. We can’t predict the future. We can’t speak to what may or may not happen, but what I can say is we’re continuing to fight, and we will continue to fight against what we see as a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
Sampan: With this effort of mass deportation that we’ve been seeing play out, we’ve seen some reports of Native Americans getting questioned and, even, reportedly, detained. So… I have two questions. First, is this racial profiling? And second, and this may sound paranoid, but if we bring this to its logical conclusion, could this become a state where everyone has to prove their status, their citizenship?
Kim: I can’t speak to any individual case that you’re mentioning as to whether it’s racial profiling or not, because, I simply don’t have all the facts. I’m seeing some of the reporting you’re talking about. But in terms of racial profiling, if you look at the roots of anti-immigrant rhetoric, it is ultimately rooted in white supremacy, right? It casts certain immigrants as welcome and certain others as unwelcome, disloyal or criminal. And that should be familiar language, because that is the same kind of racist idea that has permeated the Asian American experience for a long, long time. I mentioned the initial attacks on birthright citizenship and how that came out of the late 1800s. We also saw the same racist ideas cloaked under the guise of national security that led to the forced imprisonment, incarceration, of Japanese American citizens during World War Two. We saw that again after 9/11 right? So to me, it is not a surprise when anti-immigrant policymakers begin to implement anti-immigrant policies, that they are using illegal tools like racial profiling to determine who is American and who is not, and to determine who is an immigrant and who is not. We have a duty, not just out of solidarity, but because these are the ideas that are used to attack our communities. It’s easy to think, “Oh, these anti-immigrant attacks, they’re focused on this group. I’m not part of that group, so it won’t affect me.” There’s no reason to believe that’s the case.
(As to the second part of your question, people may not know that) this is already happening. It has been happening for years. There are forms of immigration removal that are very rapid, like expedited removal, but U.S. citizens have also been caught up in expedited removal, where they’re wrongfully removed ­— wrongfully, erroneously targeted U.S. citizens…. So, I don’t think it’s paranoid at all to think an expansion of deportation and a disregard for due process in deportation proceedings would lead to the kind of errors and environment that you’re talking about, which is, again, why we push back against these kinds of policies.