We discussed the Trump administration's focus on immigration governance as a reform priority, and its policy logic is based on the cyclical resurgence of American nativism tradition. Localism consolidates itself in the anxiety of social welfare resource allocation and national identity culture in the United States, and is alleviated through regional migration strategies of immigrant groups and handling of local population relations. In recent years, influenced by political polarization, economic differentiation, identity virtualization, and cultural narrowness, nativism has evolved from defensive exclusionary restrictions on immigration to systemic alienation and radical resistance, giving rise to new observational variables such as identity political resource utilization, welfare economic illusions, new suburban ideals, complex migration strategies for immigrant areas, and anti assimilation phenomena. The Trump administration has established the tone of "America First" immigration policy reform, creating a deterrent and intimidating effect, stimulating and responding to localist alienation tendencies. The new observed variables are clearly distinguishable in the rightward reshaping of the Trump administration's immigration system, which amplifies the cognitive chain in American immigration governance by guiding social public opinion and discourse, redefines the connotation of "Americanization", and poses fundamental challenges to the United States in improving its democratic system and fulfilling its international humanitarian obligations.

1、 The connotation of nativism and the historical reflection of American immigration policy

The connotation of nativism in the United States involves protecting the priority use rights of local populations to resources, and its cultural, political, economic, and emotional essence is reflected in racialized national identity, anxiety about the redistribution of ethnic power, compensation behavior that conceals upper class exploitation, and collective narcissism. Historian John Highham defines American nativism as an ideology that emphasizes standardization, exclusivity, and supremacy of "true America," closely related to national identity uncertainty, economic anxiety, and social change. American nativism has three connotations: traditional attribution, targeted exclusion and downgrading of outsiders, and discourse between nationalism, populism, and racism. There is a profound interrelationship between nativism and immigration policy, with immigration policy and anti immigration movements becoming the main domains in which nativism exerts its influence. From the colonial period to the 20th century, the nativist movement transformed and presented the immigration policy of the United States in various ways, including four variables: economic rationality, suburban identity dominated by economic logic, migration strategies of immigrants, and assimilation processes.

2、 Alienation Process: The Evolution of Nativism and New Observational Variables in American Immigration Governance

After Trump was elected President of the United States in 2016, American nativism experienced significant alienation, changing from defensive protection of the existing social order to a radical, desperate and destructive way, redefining "American values" and "who is American". This alienation is manifested on multiple levels, including the causes, forms, actors, and recipients of alienation, and has a guiding role in the Trump administration's immigration governance reform. One of the vitality of nativism is the fear of others taking over the dividends of the American system, but with the rise of anti immigrant sentiment, immigrant groups have begun to construct social structures and living spaces that are detached from the local system, leading to deep fears among native white people about the collapse of the racial hierarchy system. After taking office, Trump pushed for immigration policy reform to prevent others from dismembering the modern American immigration system.

3、 Alienation Result: The Direction and Characteristics of Trump Administration's Immigration Governance Reform

The Trump administration has demonstrated strategic consistency and long-term structural intentions by adjusting immigration governance reform through four new observational variables during two terms. The government will comprehensively adjust immigration welfare policies and housing resettlement mechanisms, reduce public welfare protection opportunities for legal and illegal immigrants, and build a policy ecology of "welfare cannot be obtained - immigrants cannot live". In 2019, the definition of "public burden" was expanded to affect the entry of non citizens or the acquisition of permanent resident status. Although it was abolished by the Biden administration in 2021, it was restarted by Trump in 2025. The housing resettlement mechanism, as an "implicit control tool" of immigration policy, achieves an "indirect blow" and "expulsion effect" on immigrants by compressing federal support, restricting immigrants' access to housing resources, and strengthening the "non immigrant friendly" environment through urban planning. The Trump administration uses unconventional procedures to promote a dual track approach of "legal immigration compression" and "illegal immigration crackdown", bypassing legislative barriers in Congress and extensively using executive orders and presidential memoranda to reduce immigration inflows. At the policy level, it includes physical barriers such as expanding the US Mexico border wall, institutional barriers such as limiting asylum access, and reducing the number of refugees accepted. For legal immigrants, efforts will be made to revoke citizenship rights at birth, increase the difficulty of entry for specific groups, and revoke protections for programs such as the 'Dream Chaser Program'. Implement the "merit based immigration" system, reduce the quota for family immigration, raise the threshold for investment immigration and skilled immigration, and promote the immigration points system. At the level of immigration law enforcement, the Trump administration has adopted practices that ignore long-standing administrative practices and weaken judicial processes, such as reducing the number of immigration judges, using more "accelerated deportation procedures," and restricting immigrants' opportunities to enter due legal process. Strengthen collaborative governance between the federal government and key third countries, reshape population distribution patterns, view sanctuary states/cities as resistance centers for immigration enforcement, threaten to cut off federal funding, guide blue state residents to attribute their dissatisfaction to the Democratic Party's "asylum policies," and create conflicts between local residents and state governments. Utilize non asylum states/cities to construct immigrant exclusion zones, encourage red states to enact local "anti asylum laws", and authorize local police to investigate undocumented immigrants. By leveraging the extended border control system of key third countries and implementing the "stay in Mexico" policy, immigrants are required to apply for asylum in Mexico and wait for a ruling, thereby shifting border pressure outward. Sign the 'Safe Third Country Agreement' to expel illegal immigrants to Guatemala, making it a 'safe third country'. The deployment of the Trump administration's immigration governance reform to optimize the immigration structure has shifted from "unconventional orders" to a combination of multiple institutional linkage and seeking interstate cooperation, with enhanced tool stability, expanded coverage, and stronger political unity. The practice of increasing the difficulty of living for immigrants in the United States is not limited to policy obstruction, but also guides racial segregation and cultural "purification" through spatial governance and financial allocation. The plan to promote the redistribution of domestic and foreign immigrant populations has been upgraded from the "National Border Project" to a multi governance joint map. Immigrants are seen as populations in urgent need of governance, subject to multiple monitoring, migration management, and welfare suppression regulations. This paradigm shift reflects the trend of localism alienation and immigration governance securitization that the United States finds difficult to contain. Under this logic, "control" replaces "contribution" as the dominant thinking in immigration governance.

4、 Conclusion: The paradigm and backlash of nativist immigration governance

The Trump administration's immigration governance paradigm is centered around nativism, pursuing the restriction of "non-native" elements, protection of local culture and values, prioritization of local economy, and secure immigration governance. In terms of measures, "selective nativism" is implemented, with relatively lenient treatment for technology, medicine, and engineering talents, strict restrictions on refugees and asylum applicants, and differentiated acceptance/exclusion strategies for immigrants from different countries or regions. Strategically strengthening resistance to 'non Americanization', rewriting the concept of 'Americanization', emphasizing a single path of assimilation, economic value orientation, solidification of American identity, economic and diplomatic nationalism, and value flattening. This immigration governance paradigm is prone to inciting public opinion, but has a high risk of long-term backlash, which may lead to ethnic and class conflicts, escalating group confrontations, violent conflicts, weakening democratic consultation mechanisms, and resulting in political deadlock. Localism relies on emotional guidance and misleading information, causing the public to lose confidence in the American system and weakening social stability. The United States lacks an inclusive social environment, and immigration policies rely on alienated nativism, masking the aggressiveness of racism and other extreme ideologies towards immigrant groups. The Trump administration's nativist immigration governance paradigm has undermined the moral authority and leadership image of the United States in the fields of human rights and global governance, compressed the coordination space with traditional allies on immigration and refugee policies, and encouraged other countries to emulate the legitimacy of xenophobia, which has a negative impact on the global multilateral cooperation pattern. The Trump administration needs to find a balance between short-term local interests and long-term international responsibilities to address the challenges of immigration governance reform.