Statsguru: Indians' deportation peaked during Donald Trump's first term

Over 100 illegal Indian immigrants were recently deported from the United States on a military aircraft, stirring a nationwide debate over the treatment meted out to them.

 

US President Donald Trump has pledged to intensify deportation.

 

While the Barack Obama administrations had seen a rise in unauthorised immigrants in that country from India and China, these numbers began to decline under the first Trump administration and the Joe Biden presidency. India’s position among countries with the highest number of unauthorised immigrants also shifted from 6th in 2009 to 4th by 2016 before dropping to 9th in 2022 (Charts 1 and 2).     

 

Deportation of Indian nationals was minimal during the Obama years but surged under Trump 1.0. Indians’ removal during Trump’s term was higher than Chinese nationals’. While the focus shifted towards India, the overall number of people removed by US authorities was notably higher during Obama’s second term than Trump’s first. This reflected broader differences in enforcement strategies (Chart 3). 

 

Even those holding US visa were denied entry due to administrative reasons. This increased significantly for Indian nationals during the Trump 1.0 and Biden administrations. The numbers grew from 3,636 in 2017 to 16,959 in 2020 under Trump, and further to 37,747 by 2022 under Biden, highlighting an intensified focus on administrative enforcement in recent years (Chart 4). 

 

Despite a rise in deportation, Indians experienced a peak in asylum grants during the earlier Trump administration. However, these figures declined significantly under Biden, reflecting a shift in asylum approval patterns alongside changing enforcement priorities (Chart 5). 

 

Indian naturalisations in the US have remained steady over the years, with notable peaks in 2010 under Obama (61,142), in 2019 under Trump (64,631) and in 2022 under Biden (65,960). This indicates sustained interest in US citizenship among Indian nationals despite fluctuations in enforcement policies (Chart 6).