ACE

Tag: deportation

  • Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Introduction

    Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump began introducing sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy. One major change took place on January 21st, 2025, when the Trump administration broadened expedited removal for noncitizens. Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, noncitizens are deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

    Prior to Donald Trump’s second term, immigration officers were permitted to utilize the expedited removal process on undocumented immigrants that were captured by officers within 100 miles of U.S borders, as well as those who had resided in the U.S for less than two weeks. However, under the new expanded policy, any undocumented immigrant in the United States who cannot provide proof of their legal presence in the U.S for more than two years will be subject to expedited removal. 

    There are exceptions to expedited removal, including for individuals who express an intention to apply for asylum, fear returning to their country of origin, or fear of torture or prosecution. In such cases, immigration officers will not remove the individual until they are interviewed by an asylum officer. 

    History of Expedited Removal in the U.S.

    Expedited removal has had a long history in the United States. It was first introduced in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This legislation was enacted with the goal of strengthening U.S immigration control policies, and imposed criminal penalties on individuals who utilize false documentation, engage in racketeering, or participate in smuggling. In addition to introducing expedited removal, the Act also mandated a new intervention for those seeking asylum: credible fear interviews. Credible fear interviews are a process whereby a trained asylum officer within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home country. 

    Originally, the policy of expedited removal was only enforced for noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. via a port of entry. However, in 2002, the policy was expanded to apply to noncitizens who entered by sea without inspection by government officers. It was expanded again two years later to include noncitizens who crossed any land border without inspection, and noncitizens who are found within 100 miles of a U.S. border during the first two weeks of their stay in the U.S. 

    This application of expedited removal remained consistent for over a decade, until President Trump issued an executive order in 2017 that expanded application to all noncitizens in the U.S. and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement new regulations to speed up the removal process. This included conducting credible fear interviews via telephone, which hastened deportations if an asylum seeker’s fears were found incredible. While the Biden administration rescinded this order in 2022, President Trump’s memo to DHS on January 21st reinstated the policies of his first term. 

    Arguments in Favor

    A key argument in favor of expedited removal is that it helps reduce court backlogs. By utilizing expedited removal, fewer immigration cases reach the courts, thereby easing the burden on an overwhelmed immigration court system. At the beginning of 2017, the number of cases pending in U.S. immigration courts was around 534,000, and that number has since increased, reaching 3.6 million cases by the end of 2024. Supporters argue that expedited removal alleviates pressure on immigration courts by streamlining the deportation process. 

    Proponents also argue that expedited removal deters illegal immigration. In 2016, about 267,746 illegal immigrants were apprehended by DHS while trying to cross into the United States, compared to 140,024 in 2017. Supporters attribute this drop to the idea that the quick deportations under Trump’s first-term expedited removal policies discouraged other migrants from attempting to cross the border. 

    Third, advocates highlight the reduction in court costs associated with expedited removal. Because expedited removal bypasses lengthy court proceedings, fewer cases reach immigration courts, resulting in lower expenditures on DHS lawyers, court staff, and detention bed space. As a result, the funds that would be used on these immigration cases can be redirected to other resources and services.

    Arguments against

    One key argument against expedited removal is the matter of family separation. Historically, family unity has been a guiding principle in U.S. immigration policy. Many families in the U.S have mixed legal statuses, meaning some family members may be subject to expedited removal, while others may not. With the current administration’s expansion of expedited removal, family separation is likely to increase, impacting mixed-status families. Opponents argue that this is not only unjust, but also contrary to the principles of the U.S. immigration law. 

    In addition to family separation, critics point to instances where entire families – including vulnerable members such as elderly grandparents and young children – are detained through expedited removal policies. In 2019, 69 mothers detained with their children in South Texas wrote an open letter to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) highlighting the severe physical and psychological effects of detention on their children as they waited for their credible fear interviews. In previous administrations, even infants were subjected to expedited removal along with their mothers who were attempting to seek asylum. 

    Critics of expedited removal also argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Under other immigration policies, individuals facing deportation are entitled to a full immigration court hearing. In these hearings, the individual can present evidence, call witnesses, and have legal representation. Afterward, an immigration judge will evaluate the case and may provide an opportunity for appeal. Because expedited removal bypasses formal court proceedings, immigrants facing deportation are not given the opportunity to speak to an attorney or have their case reviewed by a judge. Opponents argue that this increases the risk of mistakenly detaining or deporting individuals who may have legal status.

    Finally, critics argue that the expansion of expedited removal fosters fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. As a result, individuals may be less inclined to seek out assistance or report crimes to authorities due to fear of being detained and deported. 

    Future Prospects

    The debate surrounding expedited removal reflects a broader conversation about immigration reform in the United States. Supporters emphasize the efficiency, cost savings, and deterrent effects of expedited removal, while critics stress the risks of family separation, lack of due process, and increased fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. Given the Trump administration’s recent renewal of its first-term expedited removal policies, it is likely that the number of immigrants deported via expedited removal will increase over the next four years. Immigration policy remains divisive, so it is likely for the Trump administration’s expedited removal policies to face continued debate.

  • Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Introduction and History 

    The Alien Enemies Act (AEA), enacted in 1798 as a part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, grants the President the authority to detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile during times of declared war or invasion. While war can only be declared by Congress, some believe a rhetorical reading of “invasion” leaves a legal gray area for the executive branch to invoke the AEA in the absence of a physical invasion or declaration of war. The law gives the executive branch power to manage national security concerns via the detention and deportation of foreign nationals without judicial oversight. 

    The AEA passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France, with the United States facing threats of foreign influence, espionage, and internal dissent. It has been invoked three times throughout U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The AEA is most notorious for its role in creating Japanese internment camps after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941. 

    The broader Alien and Sedition Acts received criticism for suppressing political opposition, particularly against immigrants from nations deemed hostile. While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women. While the AEA itself has been invoked sparingly by U.S. presidents, its broad language has left room for interpretation and debate today. 

    Recent Developments

    During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to invoke the AEA as part of Operation Aurora, an initiative aimed at addressing immigration issues and criminal networks. In line with this plan, President Trump released executive orders that categorized immigration as an “invasion” and designated certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Some legal scholars believe that by classifying these cartels as state actors, the Trump administration is seeking to create legal justification for future use of the AEA to deport individuals from Mexico and other regions deemed hostile to national security.

    In response to concerns over potential executive abuse of the AEA, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Act entirely. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Alien Enemies Act

    Supporters argue that the AEA is a vital tool for safeguarding national security, particularly during times of war or crisis. By allowing for the swift removal of individuals from hostile nations, the Act is seen as a preventive measure against espionage, sabotage, or other threats. Some proponents also contend that mass migration could provide cover for criminals, terrorists, or spies seeking to infiltrate the United States, making strict enforcement of the AEA a necessity. 

    Proponents also highlight the potential use of the AEA in dismantling transnational criminal organizations operating within American borders. Targeting noncitizens involved in illicit activities, including drug trafficking and organized crime, is seen as a means of enhancing public safety. Some argue that strict enforcement of the Act can serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration and unauthorized criminal activity. 

    From a policy standpoint, strong border control measures are often considered essential to maintaining national sovereignty. Advocates for the AEA argue that it falls within the President’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats, and contend that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from intervening if the President decides to invoke it. They also assert that transnational criminal organizations meet criteria for the constitutional definition of “invasion”, justifying an invocation of the AEA in modern times. The AEA’s potential to bypass local sanctuary city policies, which may limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is another reason some advocate for the Act’s use today. 

    Arguments Against the Alien Enemies Act

    Critics argue that AEA violates several fundamental rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the right to be free from indefinite civil detention. They point to the AEA’s ability to bypass standard immigration court proceedings and deport individuals without hearings, arguing that the absence of judicial review leaves affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Experts note that this lack of judicial oversight could allow for large-scale detentions and deportations, opening the door to wrongful detentions nationwide. They argue that the lack of due process puts noncitizens and lawful immigrants at risk of being wrongfully detained or deported without the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Another primary concern surrounding the AEA is the potential for discriminatory enforcement based on nationality. The Act applies not only to citizens of a hostile nation but to “natives” of a hostile nation, which includes those who were born in a hostile nation but have since renounced their citizenship from that state. In this way, the AEA explicitly allows discrimination based on ancestry. Given that past uses of the AEA led to the surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention of residents based on their nationality, critics fear that invoking the AEA today would replicate the human rights abuses of the Japanese internment era and lead to widespread racial profiling. 

    Some legal scholars also criticize the Act’s broad allowance for executive action and vague definitions of security threats such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion”. They warn that these broad terms leave room for an administration to target civilians in times of peace. They highlight the Supreme Court’s 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins decision – which upheld President Truman’s use of the AEA for six years after the end of World War II – as a dangerous precedent that might allow future administrations to use wartime powers to attack civilians during peacetime if the AEA is not repealed. 

    Beyond legal and ethical concerns, critics emphasize that mass deportations under the AEA could have significant economic implications. Many industries, particularly those reliant on immigration labor, could face workforce shortages and disruptions. The potential loss of workers in agriculture, construction, and service industries could negatively affect local and national economies. Some economists warn that a mass deportation strategy could lead to increased costs for consumers, reduced productivity, and job losses for American citizens who labor alongside immigrant workers. 

    The Alien Enemies Act’s Future Prospects

    Applying the AEA in modern contexts is likely to face legal challenges. Courts may be called upon to determine whether broad applications of the act align with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Given the potential for legal disputes, any large-scale innovation of the AEA would likely be subject to judicial review. Legal scholars suggest that any attempt to broadly apply the AEA, such as categorizing all foreign-based cartels as state actors, may struggle to hold up in court.

    If the Trump administration or future administrations seek to implement the AEA extensively, congressional efforts to alter the Act’s provisions may also gain traction. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act represents one such effort to repeal the AEA outright. Alternatively, some lawmakers may push for reforms that introduce judicial oversight or limit the scope of the Act under modern legal standards. 

    Numerous civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have signaled their intent to challenge any broad use of the AEA. These groups may use litigation, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts to limit the Act’s application or push for its repeal in the future. Public perception and media coverage will likely shape the discourse around the Act’s future. 

    Conclusion

    The Alien Enemies Act, rooted in the national security concerns of 1798, continues to be a subject of debate in contemporary American politics. While some view it as a necessary tool for maintaining national security, others argue that it risks civil rights violations, racial profiling, and economic harm. As political, legal, and legislative battles unfold, the future of the Act remains unknown. The resolution of this debate will shape the future trajectory of immigration law, civil liberties, and national security policy in the United States for years to come.