U.S. Immigration Policy: A Diplomatic Push to Europe

Recent changes to U.S. immigration policy are no longer limited to the southern border; they are being exported into European capitals via American embassies. A new State Department cable instructs diplomats to highlight “violent crimes associated with people of a migration background” when they meet with officials in Europe, Canada, Australia and other allied countries. The goal, according to reporting on the cable, is to pressure partners to toughen their own asylum and border rules and to document crimes that can be publicly linked to migration. In effect, U.S. immigration policy is being written into the talking points of ambassadors and envoys abroad. Reuters+1

For years, transatlantic cooperation on migration focused on information sharing, refugee resettlement and joint border management. Now the message has hardened. Instead of treating migration as a shared economic and humanitarian challenge, the latest line of U.S. immigration policy casts it primarily as a security threat that must be contained. Migration and Home Affairs+1

A New Security-Focused Cable

The directive reported by Reuters and other outlets tells ambassadors to lobby host governments against what it calls “mass migration,” and to feed back regular reporting on violent incidents attributed to migrants or people of migration background. The cable’s talking points highlight sexual assault, trafficking and social disorder and warn that political elites have allegedly downplayed these problems because they were “politically incorrect.” Reuters+1

In practice, this means that whenever U.S. diplomats in Europe sit down with ministers of interior, justice officials or foreign affairs counterparts, they are expected to raise migration-linked crime as a top-tier concern. What used to be one item on a long list of shared issues now risks becoming the dominant theme in many bilateral conversations. This is a conscious choice: it positions security-heavy messaging as a formal part of U.S. immigration policy, not a one-off talking point in a speech.

At the same time, the cable fits a broader pattern. Both the European Union and the United States have increasingly framed migration as a threat and pushed key responsibilities onto neighboring countries, from Mexico and Central America to Turkey and North Africa. Analysts at American University, the Migration Policy Institute and other research centers have warned that this externalization comes at a high human cost and does little to fix the underlying drivers of displacement. American University+1 Those critics argue that a sustainable U.S. immigration policy would focus more on root causes and legal pathways than on exporting deterrence.

Europe’s Own Migration Crossroads

This diplomatic push lands in a Europe that is already deeply split over how to handle migration. Some governments, like those in Italy and Greece, argue that they are carrying a disproportionate burden as frontline states. Others, particularly in northern Europe, have tightened asylum rules and increased deportations, often under pressure from far-right parties. The European Union itself is debating reforms that would extend detention periods and build “return hubs” in third countries to process rejected asylum seekers. AP News+1

At the same time, a parallel debate is playing out about labor shortages and aging populations. Policy institutes on both sides of the Atlantic point out that Europe, like the United States, needs migrant workers to sustain economic growth, staff hospitals and care homes and keep industries running. Reports on mixed migration note that the Biden administration tried to open some legal pathways while still hardening borders, and suggest that Europe may have to do something similar if it wants to balance public concerns with demographic reality. Mixed Migration Centre+1 Any honest discussion of U.S. immigration policy has to admit that the United States faces the same labor and demographic pressures.

When Washington suddenly elevates crime-focused narratives in this environment, it does not land on neutral ground. It feeds into existing political fights in Germany, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom, where far-right parties have built their brands on associating migration with insecurity, and where speeches about U.S. immigration policy are quickly folded into domestic debates. Center for American Progress+1

Does The Crime Narrative Match The Evidence?

Linking migration and crime is politically powerful but empirically slippery. Large-scale studies in the United States have repeatedly found that immigrants are, on average, no more likely — and in some cases less likely — to commit crimes than native-born citizens. European research is more mixed and varies by country, but serious analysts caution against sweeping claims that “migration equals crime.” Context matters: poverty, segregation, labor-market exclusion and policing practices all shape crime rates.

The recent cable does not appear to engage with that nuance. It asks embassies to track sexual assaults, trafficking and violent attacks where officials believe migrants played a role, and to treat these as evidence of a broader security problem. Business Standard+1 That is not neutral data collection; it is pre-filtered through suspicion. Crimes committed by people without migration backgrounds are not given parallel weight in the directive.

Critics argue that when a government bakes this asymmetry into diplomacy, it is effectively exporting a politicized narrative. Over time, that narrative risks hardening into a kind of informal doctrine within U.S. immigration policy: migration is first and foremost a vector of danger, not a source of workers, taxpayers, neighbors and future citizens.

Diplomatic Fallout For Transatlantic Relations

U.S.-EU ties are already under strain from trade disputes, diverging approaches to China and disagreements over defense spending. Think tanks that track transatlantic relations have urged both sides to rebuild trust after years of turbulence. Center for American Progress+2EPP Group+2 Injecting a sharper, crime-centric line on migration into that relationship cuts in two directions.

On one side, governments facing strong anti-immigrant parties may quietly welcome cover from Washington. If the United States insists that migration is a threat to social cohesion and public safety, leaders in Europe can point to that stance as validation when they tighten their own rules or ramp up returns. In that scenario, talking points driven by U.S. immigration policy become a tool for domestic political battles in other countries.

On the other side, officials in countries that have tried to balance security with integration may see this as unwelcome interference. European leaders who emphasize the economic contributions of migrants, or who are experimenting with new legal pathways, can interpret the cable as an attempt to drag the conversation backwards. It invites a clash between partners over whose framing of migration becomes dominant in shared policy documents, joint statements and summit communiqués, and it raises the question of whether U.S. immigration policy is still aligned with the broader values-based language Washington uses on democracy and human rights. Wilson Center+1

Domestic Politics Behind The Talking Points

None of this happens in a vacuum. Any serious look at U.S. immigration policy has to acknowledge that these cables are written with domestic audiences in mind as much as foreign ones.

Inside the United States, immigration remains one of the most polarizing issues in national politics. The southern border, asylum policy and crime have been central themes in election campaigns. A State Department directive that tells diplomats to hammer home crime and migration abroad allows the administration to claim it is tackling the problem on a global scale, not just at home. It also helps align foreign policy messaging with speeches given at rallies and press conferences.

At the same time, it collides with another strand of recent policy. The Biden administration, before being replaced, issued hundreds of executive actions aimed at reshaping enforcement, restoring some humanitarian protections and promoting immigrant integration. Geneva US Mission+3migrationpolicy.org+3Real Instituto Elcano+3 The new cable represents a sharp pivot away from that rhetoric, even if many of the underlying enforcement tools — from expedited removal to safe-third-country deals — already existed under earlier versions of U.S. immigration policy.

What This Signals About The Future Of U.S. Immigration Policy

Taken together, the cable and its talking points tell us several things about where U.S. immigration policy may be heading.

First, the boundary between domestic and foreign policy on migration is dissolving. What American politicians say onstage is increasingly mirrored in what American diplomats say behind closed doors in Brussels, Berlin and Stockholm, turning talking points into de facto extensions of U.S. immigration policy.

Second, the security frame is winning out over other frames. Economic arguments about labor needs, humanitarian arguments about refugees and legal arguments about international protection obligations are still present, but they are being pushed to the margins. The diplomatic priority now is messaging about crime and social order, and that priority is likely to shape future negotiations on U.S. immigration policy as well.

Third, the United States is trying to build an informal coalition of the wary: a network of partners who will treat migration as a shared threat and coordinate on restrictions, surveillance and returns. That fits with broader patterns identified by scholars looking at transatlantic migration agendas, where both the EU and the United States have outsourced much of the “dirty work” of deterrence to poorer neighboring states. American University+1

Whether this strategy “works” depends on what metric you use. If the goal is to reduce asylum numbers on paper, tougher rules and externalization can do that. If the goal is to manage demographic decline, meet labor needs and uphold basic rights, the current trajectory of U.S. immigration policy and its diplomatic echo in Europe looks self-defeating.

Bottom Line

The latest cable instructing diplomats to spotlight migration-linked crime in Europe is a clear sign that U.S. immigration policy is being rewritten through a security lens — not just at the border, but in embassy conference rooms from London to Warsaw. It may please hard-liner voters at home and like-minded leaders abroad, but it risks deepening transatlantic tensions, empowering far-right narratives and ignoring the evidence that migration is far more complex than a crime statistic.

For allies who still see migration as a shared challenge to be managed rather than a threat to be weaponized, the next phase of the relationship will be a test: can they engage with Washington on security without accepting a one-dimensional story about who migrants are and what they bring to their societies?

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Post Views: 3

Vera2, Global Affairs

U.S. Immigration Policy Goes Global: How Washington Is Pressuring Europe on Migration and Crime