When progressives decry Donald Trump’s dictatorial leanings, they frequently cite his immigration policy as a prime illustration.
In June, Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee denounced the president’s “mass expulsion campaigns” as the “building block” to his “extreme efforts to grab unchallenged power.” Within the identical declaration, they condemned the administration’s expulsion of noncriminal immigrants “as merciless,” regretting the harms that it inflicted upon “law-abiding families.”
I personally concur with both of these criticisms of Trump’s strategy. But it’s vital for people in the US to grasp that they can acknowledge the initial point, even if they dismiss the second: Stated differently, one need not embrace liberals’ ethical qualms regarding extensive deportation to concede that Trump’s execution of that undertaking is unacceptably domineering.
For numerous liberals, the most ethically appalling facet of Trump’s immigration plan is its ramifications for the undocumented and their families. Armed authorities extracting youngsters from their residences, severing family ties, and ousting diligent individuals pursuing the American ideal — all this appears gratuitously pitiless.
Precisely for that rationale, it strikes numerous progressives as reminiscent of fascism: The government seems to be persecuting a susceptible minority populace for the express purpose of tormenting them. Consequently, from the left’s perspective, the humanitarian analysis of deporting non-criminal immigrants — and the anti-authoritarian criticism of Trump’s methods for deporting them — can seem like two sides of the same coin.
However, not all Americans harbor these sentiments. A noteworthy segment of voters (in certain — though not all — surveys, a majority) favors large-scale domestic immigration enforcement. To them, liberals may appear to be equating “authoritarianism” with “the implementation of policies that I dislike.”
Indeed, some voters might perceive that widespread deportation initiatives are the opposite of undemocratic. To be sure, immigration statutes are the outcomes of democratic administration: Our chosen representatives decided to impose specific constraints on migration. When individuals contravene those statutes, they undermine the electorate’s power over a matter of public interest. From this standpoint, deporting law-abiding immigrants might produce unfortunate narratives and unpleasant situations. Nevertheless, should America embrace the principle, “if you successfully cross the border, you can remain indefinitely, provided you don’t perpetrate any offenses,” it would merely incentivize additional disregard for its statutes.
I believe this train of thought places insufficient emphasis on the well-being of the undocumented, the monetary gains of immigration, and America’s potential to dissuade illicit entries via border security. Nonetheless, voters ought to recognize that they needn’t concur with liberals regarding all that in order to rebuff Trump’s immigration strategies.
The rationale for deeming those strategies authoritarian doesn’t hinge on the rectitude of global moral premises or economic theories. Rather, that rationale is predicated on the myriad manners in which Trump’s immigration plan is flagrantly diminishing Americans’ civil liberties and democratic freedoms.
Below, I will expound upon five grounds for why even conservative voters should regard Trump’s management of immigration as anti-democratic.
Related
- The populace has soured on Trump’s immigration tactic — largely
1) The administration is openly disregarding due process
Even individuals who advocate stringent immigration enforcement ought to champion immigrants’ rights to due process. To be sure, it is due process that shields the government from expelling lawful US residents (either erroneously or intentionally).
Yet Trump has unequivocally advocated for abolishing due process in immigration matters and has undertaken diverse actions aligning with that authoritarian aspiration.
During his initial term, he asserted that the government should possess the capacity to deport undocumented immigrants “without judges or judicial proceedings.” Since resuming office for a second term, the president has endeavored to curtail legal safeguards for those accused of being in the nation unlawfully.
Firstly, the Trump administration has broadened the employment of “expedited removal” — a mechanism that enables immigration authorities to rapidly deport the undocumented, devoid of a comprehensive hearing. Traditionally, this mechanism was utilized in a circumscribed range of situations: When an immigrant is intercepted proximate to the US border lacking a valid visa, a credible asylum application, or substantiation that they’ve resided in the US for in excess of two weeks.
The notion here was that migrants who have just breached the border do not command the identical legal protections as established residents. In some respects, they are still seeking entry into the nation, as opposed to authorization to remain within it. Therefore, Congress and the judiciary inferred that the government could deny such migrants a full judicial hearing, in the interest of administrative efficiency, notably when border personnel were overwhelmed by substantial inflows of asylum seekers.
However, Trump has sought to authorize expedited removal throughout the United States. Under his direction, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed a regulation that would empower Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to summarily deport any suspected immigrants who cannot instantly substantiate that they’ve been in America for two years.
The perils of this policy to lawful US residents aren’t purely conceptual. Even absent such expansive authorities, ICE and Customs and Border Protection have wrongfully detained or deported legal residents, including American citizens. According to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report, between 2015 and 2020, ICE arrested 674 potential US citizens, detained 121, and removed 70.
Courts have intervened to obstruct Trump’s expanded utilization of expedited removal, but the administration is appealing those adjudications.
Concurrently, Trump has sought to undermine the independence of the immigration court framework. Since assuming office in January, 139 immigration judges have been terminated, gently removed from their positions with an offer of premature retirement, or involuntarily reassigned. The purge seemingly aims to supplant impartial adjudicators of immigration law with unquestioning endorsers of Trump’s enforcement agencies.
Lastly, and most deplorably, the president has notoriously deported long-term US residents — who had been convicted of no offense — to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where detainees are reportedly subjected to torture and indefinite confinement. In the instance of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the administration deported a resident unlawfully, and then asserted that it lacked the capacity to reverse its error, since Garcia was now under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. The judiciary ultimately compelled the administration to repatriate Garcia to the US. However, his situation exemplifies the extremity of Trump’s disregard for due process.
2) Trump is normalizing the deployment of the military for civil law enforcement
The president has also dispatched federal troops to oversee immigration enforcement endeavors, in defiance of local political authorities.
This constitutes a grave violation of liberal democratic standards. Immigration enforcement is a civil mandate. And within the United States, accountability for upholding civil statutes is intended to reside with civilian officials — not the armed forces — barring the most exceptional circumstances. This apportionment of powers is formalized in the Posse Comitatus Act, which proscribes the deployment of armed forces for domestic policing absent explicit congressional authorization.
The administration has flouted this convention by invoking an obscure 1903 statute, which authorizes the president to mobilize the National Guard if there exists a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Yet Trump has effectively defined such a rebellion as any public demonstration — even nonviolent ones — against immigration enforcement. In a June memorandum, Trump authorized the Guard’s deployment to any “locations where protests against” ICE functions “are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.” Stated differently, the president asserted the prerogative to dispatch the military to any location within the US where a protest against his immigration strategy is unfolding — or where his administration anticipates a protest against its strategy might transpire.
The hazard that this presents to democracy is uncomplicated. Unlike civilian police forces, the armed services operate under the president’s command. If his deployment of the military for civilian functions isn’t rigorously circumscribed, there exists a risk that he could exploit his martial prerogatives to safeguard his regime from democratic oversight. Presently, Trump is asserting the entitlement to dispatch troops to Democratic cities, to preempt protests he disfavors. In the future, he could perpetrate the identical action to obstruct the election of politicians he opposes.
Naturally, that catastrophic consequence is far from certain. But it is imperative to uphold institutional impediments to it. Instead, Trump’s immigration strategy is eroding them.
Related
- Trump is annoyed by his own triumph on immigration
3) Trump is leveraging immigration enforcement to deter free speech
The president perceives immigration policy as a mechanism for penalizing speech he finds disagreeable.
This is not conjecture but rather a depiction of the administration’s official policy.
Earlier this year, Trump declared, “To all the resident aliens who participated in the pro-jihadist demonstrations, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will locate you, and we will deport you,” additionally promising to “cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.”
This position would be illiberal, even if the president were alluding solely to authentic adherents of Hamas; the government ought not to revoke legal status from individuals based on speech, regardless of how objectionable.
In actuality, though, the administration’s grievance was with any immigrant who advocated for a staunchly pro-Palestinian viewpoint.
In March 2024, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national residing in the US on a student visa, co-authored an opinion piece in her university’s publication, imploring it to divest from Israel and acknowledge the “Palestinian genocide.” This act of expression placed Öztürk on the radar of pro-Israel activists.
Upon assuming office, Secretary of State Marco Rubio rescinded Öztürk’s visa. Six masked, plainclothes DHS agents proceeded to abduct her from the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, and transport her to an ICE processing center in southern Louisiana.
The ostensible rationale for this was that Öztürk had engaged in pro-Hamas activities. But internal State Department documents, acquired by the Washington Post, divulged that the government possessed no evidence that Öztürk had ever openly espoused Hamas or participated in anti-Semitic endeavors.
The administration has similarly endeavored to revoke legal status from two lawful permanent residents — Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi — who partook in pro-Palestinian activism at Columbia University.
Federal courts have disputed the legality of all these actions, although Khalil presently confronts a deportation order.
4) The government is shielding ICE officers from accountability
A fundamental democratic freedom is protection against abuse by armed representatives of the state. The Trump administration has undermined such liberty by insulating DHS officers from legal accountability.
It has accomplished this through both formal and implicit means. On the former front, it has essentially closed down the DHS’s internal oversight offices — the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman — which sought to safeguard detainees against abuse and unjust treatment. The latter office scrutinized in excess of 11,000 complaints in 2023.
In the interim, the administration has condoned the resolution of numerous ICE agents to operate in masks and plainclothes. This policy facilitates abuse by rendering it more arduous for the mistreated to identify abusive officers and thus hold them to account.
The menace of ICE agents acting abusively is not hypothetical. Recently, an officer was captured on video propelling a woman to the ground inside a New York City courthouse. Initially, he was relieved of his responsibilities pending an inquiry. Then, just days later, he was reportedly reinstated after receiving no discernible penalty.
Critically, all this is consistent with the president’s own articulated beliefs about how law enforcement officers should be authorized to operate. Speaking of his federal assumption of control over the DC police in August, Trump boasted that, under his watch, officers would be “allowed to do whatever the hell they want.” He has also specifically stated that when protestors hurl projectiles at ICE vehicles, the officers become entitled to “arrest these SLIMEBALLS” employing “whatever means is necessary to do so.”
5) The pursuit of indiscriminate, mass deportation imposes inherent costs to civil liberties
Up to this juncture, I’ve been delineating reasons for why one should deem Trump’s immigration policies anti-democratic, even if one regards mass deportation as legitimate.
However, it’s equally accurate that any endeavor to deport millions of noncriminal, undocumented immigrants is bound to impose costs on Americans’ civil liberties.
The justification for concentrating immigration enforcement on lawbreakers is not solely humanitarian. Undocumented immigrants convicted of offenses are already recognized by the government and typically within its custody. Consequently, DHS can remove them from the country without conducting sweeps that ensnare legal US residents.
Yet the Trump administration is committed to deporting as many of America’s 14 million undocumented immigrants as they possibly can. And that has prompted them to embrace tactics such as proceeding door to door in a Chicago apartment complex, demanding that families demonstrate their legal status in the dead of night; storming vehicle wash facilities and throwing senior citizens to the ground; and levying fines on legal immigrants for not possessing proof of their status on their person at all times.
To abstain from these tactics, and to establish narrower enforcement priorities, is not to invalidate America’s immigration statutes. The rule of law has never hinged on flawless enforcement. The majority of offenses perpetrated in the United States go unpunished, including nearly half of homicides. We should manifestly endeavor to rectify that. But the sole means of pushing the rate of unpunished criminality to anywhere approximating 0 percent would be to embrace egregious violations of civil liberties: The government would necessitate surveilling more or less all citizens more or less continuously.
The preponderance of Americans would regard such enforcement as authoritarian. And thus we instead concede that the police will prioritize the prevention and punishment of specific offenses, while acquiescing to a substantial degree of unsanctioned lawbreaking. Immigration enforcement entails analogous trade-offs.
That doesn’t imply that any enforcement system broader than Joe Biden’s constitutes fascism. But I would encourage those unmoved by humanitarian objections to mass deportation to contemplate the inherent, civil libertarian costs of such a policy.
In any case, reasonable individuals can disagree concerning precisely how the government should reconcile the objectives of enforcing borders and honoring civil liberties. What ought to be beyond contention, however, is that eroding Americans’ most fundamental constitutional entitlements is never legitimate. And Trump’s immigration plan executes precisely that.
Source: vox.com
