The fight to afford due process rights to undocumented immigrants is once again being brought into the national conversation. This new dialogue can be owed to comments made by former President Donald Trump recently. Marie argued that deporting millions of undocumented people would mean having to prosecute an unmanageable number of court cases. This would mean that running such a legal process would be virtually unmanageable. Legal experts argue that the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to “any person,” thereby raising questions about the implications of these rights for both citizens and noncitizens alike.
Trump’s comments ignited a firestorm of controversy. Last Tuesday’s discussion thus gravitated toward an underlying theme—how and why due process matters to immigrants without legal status. He did however make a compelling argument that the legal framework surrounding deportation is a deep quagmire. For one thing, he warned, the number of cases could swamp the judicial branch. Many legal academics stress the need for a defined legal procedure prior to deportation. Theirs is a vision that moves boldly in favor of this need.
The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments lay down the principle that no individual should be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This legal underpinnings serves as the basis for the ongoing debate over the rights of people within U.S. borders.
The Legal Perspective on Due Process Rights
Legal scholars have long claimed that due process protections do not only apply to U.S. citizens. That’s because they apply to everyone, citizen or not, and legally residing or not. A string of important court decisions confirm that these rights indeed apply to everyone physically located within the borders of the United States. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, stated, “All of the protections of the Bill of Rights apply in criminal court,” emphasizing the importance of fair legal representation.
Tara Watson, director of the Centre for Economic Security and Opportunity, Brookings Institution. She did not shy away from defending the right of due process as an important cornerstone for safeguarding a free and democratic society. She noted, “It is true that due process slows down the machinery of deportation, but due process is what separates democracies from dictatorships.” Her perspective is much in keeping with the commonsense belief that protecting due process rights should be the baseline duty of any administration.
During his presidency, Trump introduced policies to accelerate removal processes. This had a disproportionate impact on those who were unable to prove their residency in the U.S. for more than two years. As expected, this move has raised alarm bells among immigrant rights advocates. They contend that these measures circumvent critical legal processes designed to ensure due process.
“Due process guarantees the rights of a criminal defendant facing prosecution, not an illegal alien facing deportation.” – Stephen Miller
This statement from Stephen Miller, a former senior advisor to Trump, highlights an ongoing tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. Many advocates contend that these confusing distinctions erode the very freedoms promised to us through the Constitution.
The Implications of Expedited Removal
Under Trump’s directives, expedited removal has been applied to individuals found within 100 miles of the U.S. border and who had entered the country within two weeks. This policy has proven completely incendiary, as it shuts down instances where an individual fleeing danger and seeking safety could challenge his or her deportation order in court. Critics claim that expedited removal evades due process by permitting immigrants to be quickly deported without competent legal representation or an immigration court hearing.
Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, pointed out that without due process, “the government can simply deport people or punish them at will.” This has troubling implications for abuses of power and human rights violations.
Under the Trump administration, latest version of expedited removal has been weaponized to target specific groups. This includes cases against people said to be part of criminal organizations—including the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua. Deportations under this policy generally took place with no immigration court hearing, leading to even more doubts about due process and access to justice.
“People have a right to be heard, and there are certain steps that need to be taken before someone can, say, be jailed.” – Kathleen Bush-Joseph
Bush-Joseph’s example underlines an important point. The rule of law must be a bulwark against routine governmental abuse.
The Broader Impact on Immigration Policy
Underneath the current fight over providing any due process to undocumented immigrants lies a much larger and contentious debate brewing within U.S. immigration policy. Trump claims there’s no need for due process for people who have illegally crossed the border. Countless legal academicians argue that this line of thinking threatens to erode core constitutional tenets.
During an interview, Trump stated, “They talk about due process, but do you get due process when you’re here illegally?” This rhetorical question cuts to the bone of a common refrain from many lawmakers pushing for downbeat immigration enforcement. Beyond this, it creates alarming implications for civil liberties and human rights.
Critics argue that reducing due process rights for noncitizens is a slippery slope. This turn could have long-term consequences on U.S. citizens’ rights as well. Legal experts have long cautioned that an erosion of due process sets a perilous precedent. This will result in people being removed with little or no due process.
“The Constitution says every person, citizens and noncitizens, deserves due process.” – Welker
This powerful segment from NBC journalist Kristen Welker reminds us that constitutionally guaranteed protections do not stop at the border or respect immigration status. Upholding these principles is more important than ever to guarantee justice and fairness in our immigration system.
