Immigration and Politics in the 21 st Century: The Rise of Nationalism Versus Pluralism in the United States

This paper examines the changing concept of pluralism in the United States, especially, in the aftermath of President Trump’s zeitgeist hard line immigration policy. Trump’s immigration agenda is forcefully manifested in ultra-nationalism tendencies including “trade war” (Economy, 2019), “economic populism” (Lenz and Gunter, 2017), “separation of young children from their parents at the border,” “claim of presidential powers to nullify the constitutional right to birthright citizenship” (Shapiro, 2019), “white identity politics” (Confessore, 2016), “racial resentment” (Harris, 2018), “racist nativist micro-aggressions” (Gomez and Huber, 2019), inciting racist and xenophobic rhetoric, such as “anti-Mexicanism and Islamophobia” (Huerta, 2017, p. 57) by the President in the push to advance his “Make America Great Again” and “America First” agendas. The meanness associated with Trump’s rhetoric evokes isolationism, anti-multiculturalism, intolerance, hate, and undermines America’s leadership role in the world. Bill Gates, cofounder of Microsoft Corporation, is not remiss: “America First worldview concerns me. It’s not that the United States shouldn’t look out for its people. The question is how best to do that. My view is that engaging with the world has proven over time to benefit everyone, including Americans, more than withdrawing does” (Gates and Gates, 2018). Using Trump’s efforts to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as a case study, this paper will discuss the administration’s attempts to roll back American pluralism. In addition, the paper will discuss the political ascendency of Trump and its unfolding implications. Furthermore, the paper will discuss the ideals of America’s pluralism not only as the pillar of the American way, but also, as the important glue that binds and fosters American diversity, and boosts the U.S. economy. The paper will utilize nationalism theory framework of analysis to conceptualize and explain Trump’s brand of nationalism in contemporary global politics. The paper will add to the body of knowledge and literature on the subject of nationalism. The terms populism and nationalism will be used interchangeably.

http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators http://data.worldbank.org/topic/education Table 1 show that in the past two decade world regions have achieved remarkably high growth for sustained periods. From 1990-2015, regional GDP growth increased dramatically by average of more than 300%. South Asia recorded the highest GDP growth at more than 500%, followed by Middle East and North Africa at nearly 500%, and Sub-Saharan Africa at more than 400% during this period. Likewise, in Table 2, the physical quality of life index (PQLI) gap has been cut in half in just two decades. The gap closing between 1996 and 2015 performances, highlighting lowered infant mortality (21.7 per 1,000 live births v. 41.6 per 1,000 live births), increased life expectancy (73.2 years v. 68 years), and rising literacy rates (77.8% v. 62.0%).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II provides background on nationalism theory pertinent to "America First" doctrine. Section III discusses American pluralism. Section IV presents the Trump phenomenon. Section V examines Immigration and the American Dream. Section VI addresses Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Section VII dwells on President Trump Rescind DACA. Section VIII deals on DACA and the U.S. Economy. Section IX concludes the paper. dynamic, contentious historical process of social construction." By so meaning, according to Kohn (1939, pp. 1014 and 1019; see also Kohn, 1945) "nationalism" come to be viewed "as a state of mind, permeating the large majority of a people and claiming to permeate all its members, which recognizes the nation-state as the ideal form of political organization and the nationality as the source of all creative cultural energy and of economic well-being…For nationalism represents "vested interests," not only political and economic, but also intellectual and emotional, of an intensity and extensity shown by no previous idea." Mudde (2013, p. 1) "Populism [nationalism] is best defined as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately divided into two homogeneous and warring groups, 'the pure people' versus 'the corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people." Continuing, Mudde (2013, p. 1) "contrary to claims by the Tea Party and other populist movements around the world that populism is essentially democratic, it is against liberal democracy because it hinders constitutionalism and is a form of extreme majoritarianism. Given that constitutionalism limits both popular sovereignty and majority rule, populism is theoretically opposed to constitutionalism." However, Rohac, Kennedy, and Singh (2018, p.1) are of the view "not all populism is intrinsically bad. At times, populist ideas and energies have contributed to the advancement and preservation of liberal democracy." Asari, Halikiopoulou, and Mock (2008, p. 1) corroborated this phenomenon and concluded: "strong national identity, albeit of a particular kind, is prerequisite to a stable and functioning multicultural society." Additional conceptual perspectives in the literature on nationalism vis-à-vis anti-pluralism further helps to explain and understand the current dynamics of Trump's immigration policy. Kramer (1997, p. 525) postulated, "Nationalism is one of the decisive forces in modem history and that its significance demands careful, critical analysis." Breuilly (1999, p. 222) wrote: "It is essential to take the intellectual history of nationalism seriously, precisely because without so doing one can have only an incomplete understanding of the political significance of nationalism." Alter (1994, p. 4) adds: "Nationalism is both an ideology and a political movement which holds the nation and sovereign nation-state to be crucial indwelling values, and which manages to mobilize the political will of a people or a large section of the population." Coakley (2009, p. 274) "ethno-national [nationalism] competition are also influenced by geographical factors (such as patterns of territorial concentration, or of dispersion), which determine the options for collective action. These realities, with other considerations, domestic and international, set the stage for particular patterns of political mobilization-patterns that may in certain circumstances spill over into armed violence. 1 This interplay between ethno-cultural balance, socioeconomic reality, and political mobilization varies considerably from case to case." In a complementary perspective, ethnicity [nationalism] can be viewed as "the employment and or mobilization of ethnic identity or differences to gain advantage in situations of competition, conflict or cooperation" (Osaghae, 1995, p. 11). Nnoli (1978) argued "ethnicity [nationalism] arises when relations between ethnic groups are competitive rather than cooperative. It is characterized by cultural prejudice and political discrimination." Osaghae (1995) and Nnoli (1978) were both quoted in Agbiboa (2013, p. 5).
The electoral victory of Trump in the United States with the insular promise to build a wall on the Mexican border, deport illegal aliens, and "Make America Great Again" is the biggest proof yet of the power of the recent populist upsurge that might yet put brakes on the continued globalist trend (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Before it, populist uprising in Great Britain succeeded in derailing England's deepening ties with the European Union (EU), culminating in "Brexit" passage in June 2016 (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Pro-Brexit and nationalist supporter, then Prime Minister, Theresa May, has said: "If you believe you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what the very word 'citizenship' means…Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe" (Cohen, 2017). In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far right National Front (FN) political party and losing candidate in the 2017 French presidential election, has not only promised to pull France out of the euro and hold "Frexit" referendum on membership of the EU, but also, to curb the "gigantic wave" of immigration (The Economist, November 19, 2016). Le Pen went on to describe Trump's presidential victory as "an additional stone in the building of a new world," and as for illegal immigrants, "have no reason to stay in France, these people broke the law the minute they set foot on French soil" (Nowak and Branford, 2017). In Germany, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that is "anti-immigration, anti-EU" has said "Asylum Needs Limits," "Muslim immigrants come here with attitudes that are so way out of our sort of common behavior and European attitudes,"…"It's simply a lie by the government that these migrants will fit into our society" (Schwartz, 2017). In Russia, President Putin has also stoked ethnic nationalism. He promotes ethnically defined and dominated Russia as "a state civilization held together by the Russian people, the Russian language, Russian culture, and the Russian Orthodox

IV. The Trump Phenomenon
Trump essentially launched his current political career by becoming one of the most prominent advocates for the "birther" racist conspiracy theory that former President Obama was not born in the United States (Lopez, 2017;Haberman and Martin, 2017). The unexpected outcome of the 2016 election further boosted Trump's political ascendancy. In a post-election essay, Congressional scholar, Thomas Mann, asserted: "Most people didn't believe Trump was the most qualified candidate, had the requisite experience and personality to be commanderin-chief, or made a practice of telling the truth. Nonetheless, a small number of voters strategically located in a handful of swing states overcame those doubts and took a flyer on the promise of change, a whack at the establishment, and an opportunity to express their understandable frustration and resentment of economic and cultural changes" (Mann, 2017). Mann is not alone in his observation. The Economist (April 19, 2018) posited, "Mr. Trump's takeover has its roots in the take-no-prisoners tribalism that gripped American politics long before he became president." Continuing the newspaper faulted Trump's victory as "the people versus the people…setting Americans against each other paved Donald Trump's path to power" (The Economist, November 12, 2016a), "his victory threatens old certainties about America and its role in the world" (The Economist, November 12, 2016b). George Will, journalist, called Trump "this sad, embarrassing wreck of a man" (The Washington Post, July 17, 2018). Political scientists, Michael Tesler and John Sides described Trump as "a heterodox candidate whose success in the Republican presidential primaries flummoxed many political observers including many political scientists" (The Washington Post, March 2, 2016).
So what is behind Trump's appeal and electoral success? In other words, how was Trump, a political greenhorn with no Washington experience and establishment backing able to steamroll over his seasoned opponents to win the Republican presidential primaries and nomination, and ultimately the presidency of the United States? For a better understanding of Trumpism, Tesler and Sides offered three explanations. First, "most voters aren't ideologues," meaning, Broockman (2014) "most Americans are simply not ideologically consistent enough that ideological labels such as "conservative," "liberal" or moderate accurately describe them." Also, (Shaw, 1999, p. 388) "people are generally uninvolved in politics, making them very unlikely to seek out political information and somewhat unlikely to be moved by information to which they are exposed." Tyler Cowen (2016) suggested that Trump's success should lead us to conclude that "Republican voters are less conservative, less 'Tea Party,' and less libertarian than many people had thought," and the "periphery Republicans" (voters self-identified as Republicans who are registered as Democrats) (Cohn, 2016) who voted for Trump. This observation aligns with earlier work by Converse (1964) on "belief systems" of "how most people do not interpret politics through an ideological lens." This tendency is strongly associated with "low information voters" (voters with less education and interest in politics), the group most attracted to Trump.
Second explanation, is "the grievances of some white Americans and their hostility to minority groups" (Tesler and Sides, 2016). Several studies, analyses, and reports back this up (Shapiro, 2019;Confessore, 2016;National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2004;Kerner Report, 1968). Converse (1964) argued, "Americans organize their opinions reflective of attitudes towards social groups." Ethnocentric suspicions of minority groups in general, and attitudes about blacks in particular, influence whites' opinions about many issues (Tesler and Sides, 2016;Kinder and Kam, 2010). For example, attitudes about African-Americans are a major reason why the once solidly Democratic South has become a Republican stronghold (Tesler and Sides, 2016). "Appeals to racial divisions and ethnic animosities have often succeeded in galvanizing support for racially conservative politicians and, Trump not only took advantage of white's negative attitudes about minorities, he garnered support from people like former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who once told his followers that voting against Trump "is really treason to your heritage" (Tesler and Sides, 2016). This "loyalty to one man -Donald Trump and to the prejudice and rage which consume the voter base is unprecedented in America and dangerous," argued the Economist (April 19, 2018). Political scientist, Larry Sabato (2014), offered more explanation: "The best political advertisements, positive and negative, follow the principle of not attempting to create, but instead exploiting, moods, beliefs, and prejudices already present in the electorate." Connor (2018) added, "Citizen's disillusionment with politics may mean they do not care very much about policies, legislative successes, or the like. The moral vacuum of the demagogue matches, in other words, the absence of hope in the electorate." Also, Drutman (2017) observed, "By making questions of national identity more salient, Donald Trump succeeded in winning over "populists" (socially conservative, economically liberal voters) who had previously voted for Democrats." Third explanation is the economic factor. Simply put, the economic struggles and anxieties of Americans, especially whites. Shapiro (2019, p. 1) observed, "No wonder white workers are so mad. They really are falling behind." Consider this: The number of employed white high school graduates fell by 4,854,694 between January 2008 and August 2018, nearly 17 percent decline, despite nine years of economic expansion, the number of employed non-white high school graduates rose 3,343,341, or 27.2 percent during the same time period (Shapiro, 2019, p. 2). In addition, "although the U.S. economy recovered from the 2008 financial crisis,"...the recovery was highly unequal, with certain sectors, demographics, and regions doing extremely well and others still struggling" (Rohac, Kennedy, and Singh, 2018, p. 2). For many voters, "the nature of the times" is measured by the state of the economy. If the economy is doing well voters are happy with incumbents regardless of ideology. When the reverse is the case, the mantra is "vote the bums out," and the refrains "our country doesn't win anymore," and "make America great again" become loud and vociferous. Throwback to the slow economic recovery on the heels of the Great Recession, and tapping into citizens' economic worries and financial difficulties, Trump inordinately boasted at the launch of his campaign in June 2015, "I will be the greatest jobs president God has ever created." As if all of the foregoing were not enough, the political reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to use America's preponderant military power to end protracted and nagging military conflicts around the globe, coupled with a stalled and insipid world economy combined to create the perception of a world in turmoil and a state of disorder in the minds of citizens already filled with anxieties and anger (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Increasingly, there was loud talk of America's decline. Predictably, this created a sharp and negative reaction on the part of crusading politicians, citizens and community leaders alike who called for revanchist policies to turn the tide before the situation spirals completely out of control (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). A focal point of anger is the seemingly endless Syrian civil war, the attendant refugee crisis and the increased terrorist problems across the globe (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Hence, the appearance of an emboldened and rejuvenated right-wing in the major rich countries of the world including the United States called for the scrapping of trade deals and shutting of borders to immigrants (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017).
Perceptions of U.S. power in decline deepened as President Obama assumed office and began to scale back (viewed as leading from behind accelerating U.S. slippage or perceptions thereof) some of the more pugnacious (big stick, cowboy approach) foreign policy measures of the George W. Bush administration (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). If it is true that observations of America in retreat predate the Obama presidency, however, the arrival of Obama at the White House and the re-introduction of a U.S. foreign policy with concentration on multilateralism at its core and a reduction in America's role as the global policeman provoked a sharp backlash  (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Critics seized on Obama's inexperience and contended that his actions were designed to bring the United States to ruin. End of the cold war created a vacuum that was quickly filled by the resurgence of old animosities (e.g. 1994 Rwanda massacre), peripheral wars (e.g. Bosnian War between 1992 and 1995), and the return of terrorist activities (e.g. terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York). By the time of Clinton administration's unipolarity, however, there was equivocation on how to handle the Balkan wars and Kosovo until Clinton took the bull by the horn. Political power tussle and military conflict dovetailed into cultural and ethnic chauvinism.
For a long time, writers and observers in political science and international relations have relegated cultural and ethnic variables to the background -all these people felt that cultural variables were messy, too backwardlooking and has no place in achievement oriented societies (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). But this feeling is rather flawed, because as Jervis (1976, p.151) suggested, "a person's background and culture can serve the same function as instructions in creating perceptual predispositions." Available evidence indicate that cultural roots not only run deep in the fabric of a society, it can also unite people for a common purpose, and above all it can influence who gets "what, when, and how" (Laswell, 1936). Kuzio (2002, p. 20) argued, "all civic states…are based on ethno-cultural cores." Martigny (2008, p. 544) postulated, "civic nations…need cultural elements to reinforce their legitimacy." Organski and Kugler (1989) noted, "nations, like political groups in the domestic system are in constant competition over scarce resources…the objective of nations is not to maximize power, rather, the objective is to maximize gains." Cultural nationalists are not any different, and they can go to any lengths to protect their economic interests and privileges when they are threatened or the perception thereof.
Cultural nationalists like ethnic chauvinists strive to "maximize gains" for their own ilk. Gans (2000, p. 441) explained: "According to cultural nationalism, members of groups sharing a common history and societal culture have a fundamental, morally significant interest in adhering to their culture and in sustaining it for generations. Moreover, this interest should be protected by the states." Kuzio (2002, p. 134) also inferred "nationalism can exist in the form of 'national interest', defense of 'sovereignty', territorial integrity, and factors unique to the population that make them different to outsiders." Hutchinson (2018, p. 6) is also of the view "…nationalism is vital for understanding the rise of nation-states, the formation of nations and the nature of the international system." Geertz (1973, p. 237) articulated, "nationalism is a major collective passion…" Kazin (2017) argued, "the power of populism [nationalism] lies in its adaptable nature." The foci is the question of motive behind the escalating animus against ethnic minorities and the vociferous opposition to immigration by cultural nationalists. The undergird motive is the populist march to regain economic foothold and to push back on the gains of globalization which they feel have slipped away from them while benefiting immigrants and refugees or those "who look different." President Trump championed and canvassed this feeling throughout his campaign and into his presidency. In an irredentist bluster based on "his belief that foreigners are stealing jobs from American workers" (Hoban, 2017), Trump has repeatedly lambasted and demeaned immigrants, alluding "They're taking our jobs. They're taking our manufacturing jobs. They're taking our money. They're killing us" (Kohn, 2016).
It was Patrick Buchanan, author and syndicated columnist, who said it best when he lashed out that Arabs and other colored people cannot integrate into a predominant Anglo-Saxon culture because they are from inferior cultures and therefore cannot assimilate (Nwagbara and Esedo, 2017). Hear Buchanan: "But when it comes to the ability to assimilate into a nation like the United States, all nationalities, creeds, and cultures are not equal. To say that they are is ideology speaking, not judgment born of experience…It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no 'proposition nation' can erase…Race matters. Ethnicity matters. History matters" (Anti-Defamation League, n.d.). Even "one of the most articulate exponents of liberal American political thought, Arthur Schlesinger Jr" (Rex, 1996, p. 2) asserted rather innocuously but no less disconcerting that multiculturalism could be "disuniting America" (Schlesinger, 1992). The "clash of civilizations" (Huntington, 1996) echoed Buchanan and Schlesinger's words, maybe in not similar terms.

V. Immigration and the American Dream
The most divisive wedge issue in international politics today is immigration and some countries tend to see closed borders as the answer, by implication wishing away the fact that walled borders will drive away investors and scare visitors, and countries will suffer economic declines and social upheavals. The United States is no exception. In spite of her celebrated welcoming culture and "melting pot" credential, report after report show that America has deep rooted immigration challenges. According to a recent report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service: "Long-standing immigration-related challenges include an estimated population of over 10 million unauthorized individuals, a large portion of whom have lived in the country for over a decade and have U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident (LPR) children; increasing competition among more advanced Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.99, 2020 nations for the "best and brightest" workers, including U.S. educated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates; a queue of 4.4 million individuals whose petitions for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status have been approved and who must wait, in some cases decades, for a numerically limited visa to immigrate; and ongoing border security and interior enforcement challenges" (Kandel, et al., 2015). (Figures 1  and 2 show the number of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States and undocumented population by state, respectively).
To address the "long standing immigration challenges" and growing frustration with "American broken immigration system (The White House, 2013)," then President Obama on November 20, 2014 announced his Immigration Accountability Executive Action. According to the White House: "The President's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system. These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation" (The White House, 2014). President Obama's immigration initiatives cover the following policy areas (The White House, 2014): Expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): increasing the population eligible for the DACA program by expanding the eligibility criteria, and extending the duration of DACA and its related work authorization from two to three years; Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA): allowing parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to request deferred action and employment authorization if they meet residency and other criteria and pass required background checks; Parole Rules: revising conditions under which eligible family members of military personnel, persons traveling abroad, and certain entrepreneurs may receive parole; Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers: expanding the use of provisional unlawful presence waivers beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens to also include the spouses and minor children of LPRs as well as the adult children of U.S. citizens, and clarifying the "extreme hardship" standard that must be met to obtain this waiver; https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/27/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-total-dips-to-lowest-level-in-adecade/. High Skilled Workers: ensuring that all statutorily available LPR visas are fully utilized, reviewing the labor certification program and its regulations to strengthen its integrity and responsiveness to workforce changes, providing foreign workers with greater flexibility to change jobs, expanding the use of national interest waivers to retain selected highly qualified workers, expanding opportunities for students to gain on-the-job training through administrative rule changes, and clarifying the meaning of "specialized knowledge" to ensure U.S. workers are not being unfairly displaced; Immigrant Integration and Naturalization: initiating an inter-agency task force to identify and promote both Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.99, 2020 immigrant integration "best practices" within states and localities as well as facilitating steps that can be taken administratively within and among federal agencies, and encouraging eligible LPRs to naturalize through additional payment options and possible partial fee waivers; Immigrant Visa System: providing recommendations to streamline, modernize, and improve immigrant and nonimmigrant visa processing; Labor Protection: creating an inter-agency working group to promote effective and consistent enforcement of federal labor, employment, and immigration laws to protect all workers regardless of legal status; and Crime Victims: expanding the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division's role in supporting foreign national victims of human trafficking and other select crimes. Of all the enunciated initiatives, none has generated more controversy and drawn the fury of conservatives, cultural nationalists, and ethnic chauvinists as DACA.

VI. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
In the main, the DACA program was introduced by then President Obama in 2012 as a stopgap measure that would protect from deportation people who were brought into the United States as children (Dickerson, 2018). DACA also gives those who are approved work authorization, the approvals can be renewed for two years at a time, and the program does not provide a pathway to citizenship (Robertson, 2018;Dickerson, 2018). Other DACA benefits include in-state tuition, higher education access, driving privileges, and depending on state of residence, recipients can also qualify for state-subsidized health care (Robertson, 2018;Dickerson, 2018). DACA recipients are often referred to as Dreamers, after Congress failed to pass the "DREAM ACT" which was introduced in 2001 and would have given its beneficiaries a path to American citizenship (Robertson, 2018;Dickerson, 2018

A Typical 'Dreamer'
A typical 'dreamer' lives in California, is from Mexico, and came to the U.S. at 6 years old (Figures 3 and 4) (Parlapiano and Yourish, 2018). As of September 4, 2017 there were 689,800 DACA recipients, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, 2017). The highest numbers of DACA recipients are from Mexico at more than 618,000 while the least number of recipients are from Namibia at 10 (not shown on Figure  4). (USCIS, 2017).

VII. President Trump Rescind DACA
To further demonstrate his tough immigration policies, "double down on gestures to his angry base" (The Economist, October 21 st -27 th , 2017), and crackdown on undocumented immigrants, on September 5, 2017 President Trump ordered an end to the DACA program calling it an "amnesty-first approach" and urged Congress to pass a replacement legislation to end DACA protections within six months (Shear and Davis, 2017). Also, Trump's action may not be unconnected with the ultimatum issued in June 2017 by Republican party attorneys general and governors from 10 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to the Trump Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 (Online) Vol.99, 2020 administration and then U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to end the DACA program by September 5 or face a lawsuit (Svajlenka, Jawetz, and Bautista-Chavez, 2017).
With the stroke of his pen and power of his office, Trump effectively made nearly 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for DACA eligible for deportation (Shear and Davis, 2017). Then U. S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who announced the change declared DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs." Reactions and protests to Session's announcement were both swift and widespread across the United States. Several individuals and groups of different political stripes and persuasions "condemned the move as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy" (Shear and Davis, 2017). Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos (2018), could not be more critical of Trump's tactics: "Trump champions a strong national identity by inciting conflict and segregation. His divisive view of America is rooted in resentment and anger." Former President Obama, who had warned that any threat to DACA would prompt him to speak out, called Trump's decision "wrong," "self-defeating" and "cruel." Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook (September 5, 2017): "Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us." Business and industry leaders could not be more alarmed (Wichter, 2017).
Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, wrote on his personal page : "This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it." Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, wrote on Facebook (September 5, 2017) that he was "very disappointed" by the president's decision: "Dreamers represent the best instincts of this country and the tradition that the great experiment of the United States is made better by people from other places coming here to dedicate their talents and commitment to continuing to move our country forward." Sundar Pichai, Google chief executive, wrote on Twitter: "Dreamers are our neighbors, our friends and our co-workers. This is their home. Congress needs to act now to #DefendDACA. #WithDreamers (10:28 AM - Sep 5, 2017)." Randy Falco, president and chief executive of the Spanish-language broadcaster, Univision, released a statement that read in part: "I am disappointed, to say the least, in today's announcement by the administration to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in six months. The U.S. government is revoking the ability of roughly 800,000 Dreamers to continue to work and contribute in countless ways to the United States -the only home they have ever known. This is a failure to live up to a commitment already made to Dreamers and is contrary to America's values and traditions" (Univision Communications Inc. 2017). Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs chief executive, tweeted and urged Congress to restore DACA's protections: "Immigration is a complex issue but I wouldn't deport a kid who was brought here and only knows America. Congress must address. #DACA" 3:47 PM - Sep 5, 2017." Walmart Corporation proclaimed, "We encourage Congress to work on a bipartisan solution that provides clarity to those involved and recognizes those who have strong ties to their communities and came to the U.S. in a way that was outside their control. As a company we have come to highly value many of these individuals as our customers and fellow associates. Any legislative solution needs to avoid disrupting families, our communities and the economy." Brian Moynihan, Bank of America's CEO tweeted: "Individuals covered by #DACA live in and contribute to communities BofA serves. We encourage Congress to resolve. 4:47 PM - Sep 5, 2017." Not done, on April 2, 2018 President Trump announced in a flurry of tweet messages "no more DACA deal," threatened to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and directed congressional Republicans to pass tough anti-immigration legislation (Rucker and Weigel, 2018). However, Trump's DACA proposals are not done deals yet. In fact, they face uphill battles including court challenges.
On January 9, 2018 a federal judge in San Francisco, Justice William Alsup, temporarily and partially blocked the Trump administration action to end DACA, ruling that it had to continue processing DACA renewals while a legal challenge proceeds (Robertson, 2018). Judge Alsup called Trump's administration decision to rescind DACA "arbitrary and capricious" and a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy" (de Vogue, Berman and Park, 2018 ). In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down to hear the appeal brought by the Trump administration for expedited ruling as to whether the administration can end DACA (Liptak and Shear, 2018). The Supreme Court's decision as a practical matter temporarily shields Dreamers who have already signed up for the DACA program from immediate deportation and loss of their work permits that came with DACA ( de Vogue, Berman and Park, 2018;Gomez, 2018). On April 19, 2018 a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled against the Trump administration's effort to withhold federal funds for law enforcement from "sanctuary cities," writing "the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds" (Barrett, 2018). [Sanctuary city is a term used by Trump and other conservatives who have pushed for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants to describe jurisdictions that do not notify federal immigration agents when they have taken into custody possible undocumented aliens unless they have some reason to think the person poses a threat to public safety, such as an outstanding felony warrant]. (Barrett, 2018). On April 24, 2018 U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington ruled against Trump's decision to end the DACA program, calling it "arbitrary and capricious…unlawful and must be set aside" (Associated Press, 2018). On June 18, 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Trump administration attempt to end DACA (Barnes, 2020). Former President Obama reacted to the ruling on Twitter, "Eight years ago this week, we protected young people who were raised as part of our American family from deportation. Today, I'm happy for them, their families, and all of us. We may look different and come from everywhere, but what makes us American are our shared ideals" (Barack Obama @BarackObmama. June 18. https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1273637590013480961). Apart from legal hurdles, economic benefits of keeping the Dream Act alive also work against Trump's DACA rescission order because providing pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants would significantly improve the U.S. economy as opposed to the deportation of Dreamers.

VIII. DACA and the U.S. Economy
A recent study by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank, found that Passing the Dream Act, and placing all of the potentially immediately eligible workers on a path to legal status, would add a total of $22.7 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product (Ortega, Edwards, and Wolgin, 2017). And because the gains from legalization grow each year, the cumulative increase in GDP over 10 years would be $281 billion (Ortega, Edwards, and Wolgin, 2017). According to another study, providing earned citizenship for undocumented workers would increase their wages and, over 10 years, boost U.S. GDP by $1.4 trillion, increase total income for all Americans by $791 billion, generate $184 billion in additional state and federal tax revenue from currently undocumented immigrants, and add about 2 million jobs to the U.S. economy (The Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2013). In the opposite, removing unauthorized workers will harm the U.S. economy among other blowbacks. A recent analysis by CAP found that mass deportation of unauthorized workers would instantly reduce U.S. GDP by 4.1%, and ultimately 2.6%, and contract cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion; cost nearly $900 billion in lost federal revenues over 10 years; undercut economic activities in states, especially states with large presence of unauthorized workers, for example California, by estimated $103 billion annually (Edwards and Ortega, 2016), and eliminate estimated 685,000 workers from the U.S. economy (Svajlenka, Jawetz, and Bautista-Chavez, 2017).
Furthermore, historically immigrants have made enormous contributions to American science and technology, with Albert Einstein perhaps the leading example (West, 2011). Far from "crowding out" nativeborn workers and depressing their wages, well-educated immigrants create "brain gain" for U.S. employers especially in the high technology and biotechnology industries. Recent studies by the Brookings Institution, a think tank, for example, indicated that in Silicon Valley, more than half of new tech start-up companies were founded by foreign-born owners, more than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses launched between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder, nearly a quarter of the international patents filed from the United States in 2006 were based on the work of foreign-born individuals, immigrants are three more likely to file patents that U.S. born citizens, one-third of all U.S. winners of Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology were born in other countries (West, 2011;Greenstone and Looney, 2010). Also, contrary to assertions by President Trump that "undocumented immigrants are a drain to taxpayers," the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants to state and local economies are enormous.
According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), undocumented workers collectively pay estimated $11.74 billion in local and state taxes per year in the United States, contributions range from a little over $550,000 in Montana (undocumented population 1,000) to more than $3.2 billion in California (undocumented population 3.1 million) (Gee et. al, 2017). Granting legal status to all undocumented immigrants as part of a comprehensive immigration reform and allowing them to work legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2.18 billion a year (Gee et. al, 2017). Meanwhile, as to Trump's obdurate assertions that "illegal immigrant households receive far more in welfare benefits than native citizens" (Kohn, 2016), the fact is that undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits (Santana, 2014). (Citizen children of illegal immigrants, often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" do qualify for social benefits). (Santana, 2014). Also, instead of mooching off the public benefits system, undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security they will not be able to collect (Santana, 2014). In addition, Trump's assertion has been disputed by the conservative Cato Institute. A 2013 Cato Institute study found that non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25% less likely to receive Medicaid than their poor native-born counterparts and are also 37% less likely to receive food stamps (Ku and Bruen, 2013).

IX. Conclusion
Walter Mead, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, a think tank, wrote in Foreign Affairs of March/April 2017: "For the first time in 70 years, the American people have elected a president who disparages the policies, ideas, and institutions at the heart of postwar U.S. foreign policy. No one knows how the foreign policy of the Trump administration will take shape, or how the new president's priorities and preferences will shift as he encounters the torrent of events and crisis ahead. But not since Franklin Roosevelt's administration has U.S. foreign policy witnessed debates this fundamental." While the full impact of these fundamental debates may never be known in their entirety, however, it is abundantly clear that to President Trump, "the unquestioned surging force in American politics is populist nationalism…the nation-state of the American people, and its chief business lies at home" (Mead, 2017).
Economic globalization has enhanced economic possibilities and eliminated barriers to free trade, but at the same time, it has left many individuals resentful and jobless and, the industries prostrate. The poignancy cannot be missed in rising inequality and the feeling of "been left-out," the "game is rigged," "scapegoating" of and "blame and keep foreigners out." These feelings are especially strong in the industrialized nations, particularly, in the United States manifested by the mean-spirited brand populism of the Trump administration, which stir up deep anti-immigrants sentiments, demonize immigrants, calling for their exclusion and ouster and blaming them for virtually everything that is wrong with America, especially the economic travails and security concerns of Americans. While other factors are at work in the immigrant angst, there is a strong connection between the incidence of globalization and the upsurge in ethno-nationalism in the United States, vis-à-vis "economic nationalism that tend to create, bolster and protect national economies [United States] in the context of world markets" (Pryke, 2012, p. 281), and by implication protectionism and escalation of trade barriers.
Nationalism will always be around, for as Liebich (2006, p. 583) maintained "there is no escaping nationalism" but extreme nationalism and cultural parochialism are passing fads. Overall pluralism and globalization are "force of good" not just with respect to the benefits of economic growth and multiculturalism, but also, free markets go together with shared prosperity and pluralism. Dahl (1997, p. 121) reiterated, "pluralism is necessary, inevitable, and desirable," because "diversity gives people more choice and leads to selfunderstanding" (Bailey and Braybrooke, 2003, p. 112). It may that to check virulent nationalism, nations must always strive to pursue policies to boost productivity, restore economic growth, maintain social progress, avoid wars, and hence reduce citizens anxieties. Delanty (1996, p. 56) enjoined, "…the most important challenge facing the democratic multi-cultural state…is to find ways of preserving the link between social citizenship and multiculturalism. Without a solid basis in social citizenship, multiculturalism will suffer continued attacks from nationalism, feeding off social insecurity." We can take a cue from the wise words of French President, Emmanuel Macron. In a momentous speech to the American Congress on April 25, 2018 that many commentators have alluded to as "a veiled rebuke" to Trump's "extreme nationalism," Macron said: "isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism can be tempting to us as a temporary remedy to our fears. But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse but inflame the fears of our citizens…We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity" (Lederman and Mascara, 2018).