stance

SANTIAGO, Chile, Feb. 4 (UPI) — Chileans want more restrictive laws for unauthorized migrants and even the imposition of prison sentences, according to the latest Plaza Pública survey by public opinion firm Cadem.

The survey results were released after president-elect José Antonio Kast conducted a tour of Central America and the Caribbean this week.

Kast, who will take office in March, met with the presidents of the Dominican Republic, Panama and El Salvador to discuss security and organized crime in the region.

In El Salvador, he also visited the Terrorism Confinement Center, or Cecot, the notorious maximum-security mega prison promoted by President Nayib Bukele.

The Cadem survey found that 79% of respondents believe Chile should adopt a more restrictive migration policy than the current one. In addition, 74% said they agree with having a law that sets prison sentences for irregular migration, while 81% approve of expelling all irregular migrants.

However, 61% said they would support regularizing migrants who can prove they have formal employment.

Immigration was one of the most prominent issues in Kast’s presidential campaign, with proposals such as expelling irregular migrants, installing physical barriers at unauthorized border crossings and limiting the transfer of remittances abroad.

Chile’s migration conflict centers on a crisis of irregular immigration that has strained public services, including health care, education and housing, and increased perceptions of insecurity.

Kast has promoted with neighboring countries the opening of a humanitarian corridor to allow migrants to leave. He has also announced that during his first 90 days in office, he will submit to Congress a bill to classify irregular entry into Chile as a crime, which is currently considered only an administrative offense.

“The migration issue was a central topic of the presidential campaign that has just ended and, therefore, it will also be a central issue for the government that begins in March,” Republican Party lawmaker Stephan Schubert, tied to the incoming president’s coalition, told UPI.

For that reason, he emphasized the need to work on a migration reform to address all the changes that are required.

“It is an issue that needs to be put in order by the future government, and that involves strengthening borders to prevent irregular crossings, but also modifying legislation to establish irregular entry into Chile as a crime,” he said.

Schubert also said priority must be given to “the expulsion of those foreign citizens who, by administrative resolution or court ruling, must leave our country.”

Deputy-elect Fabián Ossandón, from the right-wing Partido de la Gente, told UPI that Kast should push for a deep migration reform, with a priority focus on the northern regions of the country, which border Peru and Bolivia.

“That agenda must include border control with technology and intelligence, effective expulsions of those who violate regulations, regularization processes with clear and demanding requirements, and real regional coordination with neighboring countries,” he said.

One obstacle for the new government is that it will not hold a majority in Congress to approve all of its reforms with the support of the center-right alone, forcing it to seek consensus.

Migration policy specialist Byron Duhalde, of the Center for Migration Studies at the University of Santiago, said the future president’s idea of modifying migration categories requires changes to the law.

“An absolute majority in Congress is required to approve modifications. The parties that are part of the new government do not have the necessary votes,” Duhalde said.

However, Ossandón defended the possibility, arguing that “there is broad-based citizen support to move forward with deep changes, and Congress has a responsibility to legislate on the real priorities of people and the country.”

He added: “On this matter, it is key to act with determination and coordination to push for an effective migration reform that provides certainty, order and clear rules, and that can be implemented as quickly as possible.”

Political analyst Guillermo Bustamante, an assistant professor in the the Faculty of Communications of the University of the Andes, said Kast will be forced to build bridges to advance legislative reforms.

“Here, the figures of his political committee, the presidents of governing and opposition parties, as well as parliamentary caucus leaders, will be relevant,” Bustamante said, adding that the first days of the new administration will be key for the opposition to define its own course of action.

“What we have seen so far does not allow us to ensure that migration will find an agreement between the parties, nor that there is an intention to engage in dialogue around this issue with a 20-year outlook,” he said.

Nevertheless, Duhalde noted that given the positions of political parties on migration, significant cross-party agreement exists on tightening certain measures.

“It is an issue in which the coalition of parties that will be governing will indeed have opportunities to negotiate with the Party of the People, for example, to secure the missing votes needed to legislate on this matter,” he said.

He said he believes clear results will only be achieved if authorities manage to respond to migrants’ needs.

“The challenge will be to design strategies and measures that respond in a balanced way in terms of security, but also protect the fundamental rights of these people in vulnerable situations, linked to the political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela,” Duhalde said.

WASHINGTON — It took Democrats nearly a year to respond with a unified message to President Trump’s signature policy initiative, harnessing national outrage over the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota this week to leverage government funding and demand change.

Yet divisions persist as the party barrels toward midterm elections and, a year from now, the start of primary season. And Gavin Newsom stands right in the middle of them.

Staking the middle ground

A calibrated position by the California governor has placed him to the right of the party’s progressive base that has opposed the very existence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for years — well before Republican lawmakers passed legislation doubling the agency’s budget, increasing its presence and visibility in American life.

Newsom has rejected calls for ICE to be abolished since the 2024 campaign, when Democrats saw clear alarms in public polling that showed President Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, on the back foot against Trump on immigration. To the contrary, Newsom has highlighted California’s cooperation with the agency, and his efforts to protect that relationship from progressive local lawmakers.

While Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard last summer was prompted, in part, by protests in Los Angeles against ICE raids across the city, the governor’s reaction focused more on the president’s alleged abuses of power than on the ICE raids themselves. To the extent he did comment on them, Newsom characterized their deployment as unnecessary and gratuitous, a political tool used to intimidate the population.

After the killing of U.S. citizen Renee Good, 37, by ICE officers earlier this month, and days before the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, also 37 and a U.S. citizen, by Border Patrol agents last weekend, Newsom told conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro that his position against abolishing the agency had not changed. And he disassociated himself from a social media post by his office that characterized ICE’s conduct in Minneapolis as “state-sponsored terrorism.”

“California has cooperated with more ICE transfers probably than any other state in the country, and I have vetoed multiple pieces of legislation that have come from my Legislature to stop the ability for the state of California to do that,” Newsom told Shapiro.

The immigration enforcement agency received a massive influx of cash for detention facilities and recruitment last year with the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans now hope to build on that law with even greater appropriations this year, providing ICE with more funding than most foreign militaries, including the armies of Iran, Turkey, Canada and Mexico.

“I disagreed when I think a candidate for president by the name of Harris said that in the last campaign,” Newsom added, of calls to abolish the agency. “I remember being on [MS NOW’s Chris Hayes’ show] hours later saying, ‘I think that’s a mistake.’ So, absolutely.”

A progressive rallying cry

It’s a position in stark contrast with potential 2028 Democratic hopefuls that could pose a challenge to Newsom’s presidential ambitions.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic lawmaker from New York said to be considering a bid, has referred to ICE as “a rogue agency that should not exist.” The agency “doesn’t deserve a dime” of federal dollars, she has said, “until they can prove they are honoring human rights.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), also rumored to be considering a run for the nomination, has advocated explicitly for ICE to be replaced with a new entity, built from scratch, without the baggage of the Sept. 11–era agency.

“Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department,” Khanna said this week.

After Pretti’s death, Newsom also called for a pause to any “new funding” for ICE. He did not call for a review of its existing, historic levels of funding.

“Suspend the LAWLESS mass deportation raids nationwide NOW — ICE is no longer just deporting dangerous criminals,” the governor wrote on X. “Send the border patrol back to the border. End the militarization of ICE.”

Showdown on Capitol Hill

Pretti’s death is already complicating efforts to avert another government shutdown in Washington, as Democrats — joined by some Republicans — view the episode as a tipping point in the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

Senate Democrats pledged this week to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless changes are made to ICE operations in Minnesota. And Democrats in the House are calling for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s departure as a condition in shutdown negotiations with the White House. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) threatened to pursue her impeachment if Trump doesn’t fire her first.

Both demands track with Newsom’s latest position. The California governor was harshly critical of Senate Democrats when, during the shutdown late last year, a core bloc voted with Republicans to reopen the government without achieving any meaningful concessions in their weeks-long fight over healthcare tax breaks.

The latest Democratic uproar over ICE tactics threatens a similarly broad spending package that also includes funding for the rest of the government, including the departments of Defense, Education, Health, Labor and Transportation.

“Senate Democrats have made clear we are ready to quickly advance the five appropriations bills separately from the DHS funding bill before the Jan. 30 deadline,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said this week.

“The responsibility to prevent a partial government shutdown,” he added, “is on [Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)] and Senate Republicans.”

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Spencer Pratt knows you love to hate him. Now he wants to lead Los Angeles
The deep dive: Housing costs are crippling many Americans. Here’s how the two parties propose to fix that
The L.A. Times Special: How once-exiled filmmaker Brett Ratner staged a Hollywood comeback with ‘Melania’

A note to readers: I will be out on parental leave until April, but fear not, California Politics will be in capable hands. You’ll keep getting the latest each week from my distinguished colleagues.

I’ll see you all soon,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.