All nations have the right to select the people they want to let in. It’s certainly their business to maintain a demographic balance within their territories, to keep their respective economies in order, and to protect their interests. No surprise, then, that immigration rhetoric influences policies and politics across the world. Donald Trump’s election mantra, Make America Great Again, got him a landslide victory against his Democrat opponent. Then there’s the United Kingdom’s Illegal Migration Act 2023, which, though controversial, aims to deter irregular migration through stringent measures.
Meanwhile, the European Union Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, plans to introduce new laws in early 2025 to simplify deportation processes and enhance border security. Closer home, The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and China have implemented distinct policies to address illegal immigration, each tailored to their unique socio-economic contexts.
However, in India, since it attained Independence in 1947, laws relating to immigration have been kept in abeyance, virtually allowing unabated illegal immigration. India has consistently seen a huge influx of illegal émigrés from neighbouring countries. Bangladeshi immigrants to Afghan refugees have been allowed entry without much consideration of the fact that the country is overpopulated and has limited resources.
Of late, there has been a huge discussion about Rohingyas from Myanmar. Due to the narrative of persecution in their home country, they have been generously accommodated in the remote areas of Jammu, raising concerns about changes in the region’s demographic profile. Who allowed these migrants, many of them undocumented, to settle in a state that is already riddled with strife and despair? Why is India, under the guise of humanitarianism, being coerced into accepting people with unknown antecedents from countries that don’t want their own people?
H1B visa & Trump’s policies
Donald Trump’s dramatic re-election has once again drawn the arclight onto the H1B visa, which allows American employers to hire foreign workers for speciality occupations requiring high-level educational qualifications (typically equal to or more advanced than a standard United States Bachelor’s). The application process is strict, requiring employer sponsorship.
This means a US employer must offer a position to and file a petition on behalf of their preferred foreign candidate. The employer must also file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the US labor department, affirming that the hiring wouldn’t adversely impact the wages and working conditions of US workers. Upon LCA approval, the employer files Form I-129 with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It’s only after these approvals that a candidate gets to apply for visa stamping at a US consulate near them. The visa is normally granted for up to three years and can be extended to a total of six years. The H1B programme has an annual cap of 85,000 visas, 20,000 of which are reserved for individuals with advanced degrees from US institutions. Due to high demand, a lottery system is employed to select applicants.
Trump’s proposed immigration policies are also comprehensive, aggressive, and focused on dramatically reducing illegal immigration through strategies such as mass deportation. The “largest deportation operation in American history”, the key components of this proposal are the declaration of a national emergency to expedite deportations, and the utilisation of military resources to remove millions of undocumented immigrants.
The proposal also seeks to reinstate policies such as the “Remain in Mexico” programme, requiring asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while the US immigration department processes their cases. Additionally, there is an intent to expand agreements with third countries to manage asylum claims outside US borders.
Also read: MAGA vs Musk’s tech bros—H1B visa is a red herring, the real fear is in the Republican Party
Anti-immigrant English Channel
In the UK, where the last prime minister was born to parents of Indian descent, people look down upon illegal immigration. However, the Illegal Migration Act, which aims to stop undocumented migrants from entering the UK, has been mired in controversy. The Act seeks immediate detention of illegal entrants, disallowing any asylum claims, and the mandatory removal of anyone entering the UK through irregular routes.
Migrants, under this Act, are to be removed to their home country, a designated “safe” country, or shipped off to Rwanda (now ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court). Even though the Act has been deemed punitive and called out by the United Nations, it’s quite popular among British citizens who have been fed up of immigrant ghettos in the UK.
A recent survey by the UK Office for National Statistics shows that Muhammad has replaced Noah as the most popular baby name in England and Wales. Moreover, according to the International Organisation for Migration, 78 people drowned while trying to cross the English Channel in 2024, a popular route for illegally entering the UK. Clearly, illegal migration has impacted more than just the UK’s demographic profile.
It has even forced the once-receptive EU to become stricter. Immigrants from the Middle East, and their reported inability to assimilate into mainstream culture, have likely prompted this change. Right-wing parties are coming to power across Europe, seeking to put a stop to illegal migration by sealing porous borders and implementing strict protocols for asylum seekers.
Also read: H-1Battle for America is Trump’s first challenge
UAE, Saudi, China approach
The UAE enforces strict immigration laws to manage its large expatriate workforce–unauthorised residency or employment can lead to detention, fines, and deportation. To mitigate illegal immigration, the UAE has periodically offered amnesty programmes, allowing undocumented migrants to regularise their status or exit without penalties. For instance, a two-month amnesty was announced in December 2012, during which approximately 20,400 migrants applied for regularisation or repatriation.
In recent years, the UAE has tightened its immigration laws, increasing penalties for violations such as overstaying visas and illegal employment. These measures aim to deter non-compliance and maintain the integrity of the country’s immigration system. Even visitors entering on tourist visas are subject to strict Islamic laws. Take an 18-year-old British citizen who is incarcerated in Dubai because he engaged in consensual sex with a 17-year-old fellow Londoner while on vacation there.
Saudi Arabia, like other Gulf nations including the UAE, employs the Kafala system. It requires foreign workers to have local sponsors, typically employers, who oversee their legal status. Unauthorised employment or residency can result in detention and deportation. The kingdom has initiated reforms such as the “Nitaqat” programme, which incentivises the employment of Saudi nationals over expatriates. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has conducted campaigns to regularise undocumented workers, implementing stricter penalties for employers and workers violating immigration laws.
In China, unauthorised immigrants may face fines, detention, and deportation. Moreover, the country has strengthened border controls and increased inspections to prevent illegal immigration. In recent years, China has also implemented stricter visa regulations and conducted nationwide campaigns to identify and deport undocumented migrants. These measures are part of broader efforts to maintain social stability and regulate the labour market.
A friend recalled witnessing a Chinese border control official at work. He was strictly grilling a foreign family, accompanied by an elderly parent, to prevent the illegal abandonment of their aged family member in the country.
Also read: Indian Muslims should welcome CAA, question those peddling false narratives about it
Why criticise India’s CAA-NRC?
Immigration laws are harsh and enforced strictly across the globe. And yet, when India seeks to implement such laws, it is criticised for being ‘discriminatory’.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) seeks to grant Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians) from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. The scope of the Act applies only to specific religious communities from three neighbouring countries. It is aimed at providing faster relief to refugees but has sparked debate for its alleged exclusionary criteria. The uninitiated should turn to the Partition of India and the Nehru-Liaquat pact before arguing that the CAA is discriminatory.
CAA amends India’s citizenship laws but does not affect existing Indian citizens. Rather, it seeks to give hope to persecuted Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, allowing them to return to their roots. These realities remind me of the Lautenberg Amendment, a US law extended to persecuted minorities such as Jews.
On the other hand, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) seeks to curb illegal immigration into states such as Assam. An influx of illegal immigrants from neighbouring countries is changing the state’s demographic profile and creating turmoil for residents, making such measures necessary.
Why is it that international attempts to curb illegal immigration are applauded while India’s efforts are met with anti-secular taunts? It’s time to tone down the hypocrisy and respect national policies – whether they involve welcoming skilled foreign workers or protecting the interests of local communities.
Meenakshi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
If religion based citizenship laws are implemnted by US and Europe, will Meenakshi Lekhi support it? Only Christians and atheists will have fast tracked citizenship?
Much awaited article