By Jesus Verduzco, PhD student in the Sociology Department at UC-Santa Cruz
In this brief essay, I will introduce my research on immigration policy. I also share my experience with collecting data from elected officials in the Central Valley of California over the summer of 2025. Below, I provide a brief introduction to the field of public policy and outline the specific research area on which I am focusing. I am currently a PhD student at the University of California, Santa Cruz, on my way to becoming a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology. As a youth growing up in Visalia, California, in a single-parent household, my mother and I struggled to live on a small government subsidy. At times, we had to sell tamales and cheesecakes to make ends meet. My passion for policy reform is deeply rooted in my upbringing as a Mexican American in the Central Valley of California. For this reason, I am grateful to the Dolores Huerta Center for the Americas for their graduate research grant, which has allowed me the means to pursue my academic goals.
My research supports diversity in the field of public policy and examines the concept of “zero-tolerance” in immigration. The term “zero-tolerance” can arguably be defined as an expansion of government authority and resources to multiple agencies with the singular objective of eliminating a social problem. Some recent examples of U.S. zero-tolerance policies are mandatory prison sentences during the war on drugs or automatic school expulsions for bullying. Zero-tolerance policies inherently require severe consequences for their target population. According to public policy scholar Deborah Stone, U.S. institutions tend to develop a series of policies to “wage a metaphorical war” on an issue. A policy framework can be defined as “an outline of roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders, governance, and operations for procedures.” (European Agency, 2018) Unlike law, public policy does not require court rulings, litigation, or voting for it to be implemented on a large scale. Policymakers, whether elected or appointed, significantly influence the perspectives that frame issues such as immigration and serve a critical leadership role in implementing these policies.
As a researcher, I am interested in how immigration policy can be framed differently to create a human rights-based framework. This summer, I began collecting interviews to use in my research. I conducted one-hour interviews with three individuals who worked in the local government at the start of the Trump regime. The purpose of the study was to gain insight into how local-level public servants interpreted federal immigration policies. I also asked for their thoughts on improving immigration policy and actions they took to protect their constituents. My questions varied from administrative challenges to the likelihood that they would support specific pro-immigrant policies. The human rights-based policies they expressed support for included: a) establishing protections for immigrants to practice the culture from their home countries, and b) expanding protections for the right to speak their home country language.
Obtaining interviews with public servants who would speak to me on the topic of immigration was, to say the least, difficult. Some of the reasons may be because a) some representatives were not re-elected after the first Trump Administration, and practically fell off the face of the earth; and/or b) the subjects whom I was able to reach did not want to engage with me, likely because immigration is currently a highly polarized political topic that may jeopardize their seat. After receiving approval to conduct this research project in May 2025, I started by creating contact lists for potential interviewees. Knowing that the recruitment stage would be time-consuming, I worked diligently during the months of May 2025 to August 2025 to contact about 50 different governmental offices. I emailed and made phone calls to political representatives in Phoenix, Arizona, and throughout the Central Valley of California. I sought to focus on regions that had historically been strongholds of the Republican Party. Here, my idea was to start my research in places where I would likely have a hard time receiving support for a study to reform immigration policy.
It was not easy to secure an interview. On most occasions, I would receive a voicemail. When I would speak to a secretary, they would say, “We will get back to you.” The first interview agreement I secured was the result of a phone call I had with a former school board member from my hometown. They provided me with a list of names of public officials whom they believed would be willing to speak to me. I proceeded with a web search and a few days later — success! After months of rejection, it felt as though my research had finally gained momentum. In the weeks that followed, I scheduled two interviews with Former Mayors, and a third with a member of the Board of Supervisors for a county in the Central Valley.
I was eager to hear how the Trump Administration’s zero-tolerance immigration framework had impacted the agriculturally rich region of the Central Valley. The first interview I conducted was in a virtual setting with a Former Mayor from a small agricultural town with an estimated population of 10,397 residents. (Data USA, 2025) When I asked about his definition of key immigration policy terms, such as “illegal alien,” “migrant invasion,” and “zero-tolerance,” he responded with “it is just political rhetoric.” He did not appear to emphasize any importance in President Trump’s political rhetoric, such as calling migrants ‘invaders’ or framing immigrants as criminals. During the interview, he also mentioned that the city council was concerned about Mr. Trump’s threat to cut federal funding for cities that did not support federal immigration objectives. He wanted to ensure that a large water project being built in the city would secure federal government funding. When I asked about any plans for protecting his constituents, he stated, “It’s in supporting workers and enforcing worker rights. I think that is crucial. The other is in informing them of their rights as ‘citizens of this country’ and I use ‘citizens’ in quotes because you can be a resident and still participate in the political process in this country.” Here, he appeared to be alluding to the responsibility that legal permanent residents, or new Americans, have with electing socially responsible leaders. The leading solution that the subject suggested was an educational approach to protecting employee rights and voter rights.
The second interview I conducted was with another Former Mayor.During the first Trump Administration, this subject was adamant in advocating for the local government’s right to choose its level of cooperation with federal immigration agencies. In 2018, during the first unveiling of the Trump regime’s “zero-tolerance” immigration agenda, the subject authored a three-page City Ordinance in support of protecting DACA recipients within the city boundary. In 2025, the subject authored a policy document titled “Report to City Council: Establishing [insert city name here] as a Welcoming City.” The Report includes demographic data on residents, discusses the contributions that immigrants make to the local economy, and reiterates that the city is a “welcoming city” to all residents. This time, when I asked about their thoughts on key policy terms, he viewed them as seriously impactful. He stated, “An invasion implies an army. An army of invaders coming into this country. Migrants are not a threat to the well-being of Americans, and on the other hand, most migrants contribute to the economy, cultural institutions, buy homes, and send their children to school.” His answer hit the nail on the head. Scholarly work supports the claim that framing migrants as invaders can cause unnecessary fear of migrants. The subject was aware that political rhetoric used by elected officials can perpetuate negative stereotypes about migrants and cause Americans to feel that migrants are ‘invading the country.’
The next day, I interviewed a member of the Board of Supervisors (BOS). I arrived fifteen minutes early, wearing the suit I brought with me from Santa Cruz. I recall the subject often referring to his Latino constituents as “mi gente.” When the interviewee would say, “mi gente” it would remind me of a concept called surrogate representation. A surrogate representative is an elected official whose career does not rely on establishing actionable policies to create equity, but instead uses their presence to fill-in for a marginalized constituency (i.e., meeting diversity quotas). This relates to my research because, although having a connection to the Latino and immigrant community is important, real immigration reform will require actionable support from policymakers. The BOS interviewee had expressed support for border security and cooperation with the federal government, but also believed that the U.S. Congress must play a larger role in long-term immigration reform. There is still more in-depth analysis that I need to conduct before I can determine any concrete policy recommendations for immigration reform. However, the common factor between all interview subjects was that they believed immigration reform was needed.
After the interviews, I drove back to Santa Cruz from Visalia and brainstormed on how to categorize immigration policies that were trending. The term “hyper anti-immigrant” came to mind when I thought about the current Trump Administration’s zero-tolerance policies. I identified the following metrics that may serve as criteria for “hyper anti-immigrant:” a) the policy conflicts with international law; b) the political rhetoric used to frame immigration perpetuates negative stereotypes of immigrants; c) the criminalization of immigrants through the U.S. court system; d) the bias and disproportionate impact of the policy on immigrants from a specific race, ethnicity, or nationality; and e) the extent to which government agencies are allocated governmental resources and political authority.
Moving forward, I will work closely with the faculty in the Sociology Department to refine my research. In my field statements and dissertation proposal, I will elaborate on my findings and examine the zero-tolerance framework. It is not far-fetched to consider my research a pipe dream. Especially, considering the current political climate and how far U.S. policy is from a human rights-based immigration framework. It is It is difficult to imagine a U.S. immigration policy that is more humane to immigrants. However, if I have learned one thing from the life of a great advocate like Dolores Huerta, it is that change does not happen overnight, and we must demonstrate dedication to our work.