On April 22nd, the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics hosted a panel titled “The Reality of Immigration & Deportation in Chicago,” drawing a sizable crowd to hear a wide-ranging discussion on one of the most politically charged issues in America. Co-moderated by undergraduates Doan Tran and Ammar Ghouse, the panel brought together three prominent figures with expertise in immigration law, enforcement, and policy: Ronald Vitiello, former acting director of ICE and now a senior adviser to DHS; Nubia Willman, former director of Chicago’s Office of New Americans under Mayor Lori Lightfoot; and Muzaffar Chishti, Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. With a blend of both operational and legal perspectives, it was a great opportunity for more nuanced conversation on such a multifaceted issue.
The panel began with an overview of recent changes in border policy and enforcement under the Trump administration. Vitiello emphasized a dramatic decrease in illegal crossings at the southern border and credited this to new enforcement policies and a larger military presence. He argued that the reduced traffic has allowed border agents to better focus on drug interdiction and human trafficking. Chishti and Willman offered a more cautious view, raising concerns about civil liberties and due process, particularly for those apprehended within U.S. communities rather than at the border.
Vitiello also stressed the importance of restoring operational credibility at the border as a precondition for broader immigration reform. He argued that without enforcement, incentives to cross the border illegally persist, undermining the structure of legal immigration. He defended the Trump administration’s policy of detaining asylum seekers pending hearings, framing it as a practical response to past surges where immediate release into the interior led to further increases in crossings. While acknowledging the moral and logistical complexities of such decisions, he maintained that enforcement is a necessary component of any sustainable immigration policy.
Chicago’s role as a “welcoming city” was a recurring theme. Willman walked attendees through the city’s long tradition of protecting immigrant rights, emphasizing that the city’s approach is not about obstructing law enforcement, but about ensuring due process and equal treatment under the law for all residents—citizens and noncitizens alike. She also pushed back against the conflation of “sanctuary” policies with lawlessness, explaining that the city focuses on holistic inclusion and civic engagement rather than simply limiting cooperation with federal authorities.
Chishti, meanwhile, explored how recent enforcement trends differ sharply from those of the Biden and Obama years. He pointed to a marked shift toward more aggressive interior enforcement and warned of an expanding immigration control apparatus that could operate without meaningful oversight. He also raised legal concerns about recent student visa revocations and the deletion of immigrant records in federal databases, suggesting that such moves lacked transparency and due process. This subject is especially pertinent to UChicago, as several UChicago current students and recent alums reportedly had their visas revoked earlier this month.
Unfortunately, the event was repeatedly disrupted by a small group of audience agitators who commandeered the conversation with extended outbursts. At least four such prolonged incidents occurred over the course of the discussion, consuming an estimated almost 10 minutes of time originally allotted for panelist dialogue. Protesters shouted accusations of racism, fascism, and genocide at the panelists – particularly (but not exclusively) Vitiello – ignoring moderators’ requests to reserve comments for the Q&A portion at the end. Event staff were even forced to ask one protester to leave the venue after repeated refusals to stop interrupting. Thankfully, the moderators were able to smoothly steer the conversation back on track after each interruption.
Outside the disruptions, the panel was an informative discussion, illustrating both the intensity of some public sentiments around immigration and the importance of civil, policy-oriented discussion in the face of an abandonment of decorum in dialogue.