Timothy Snyder, a Yale Professor (here and here) wrote a Substack posting titled “deportation action as regime change.”   Executive action to bar entry into the country and to deport persons has a specially resonant role for aspiring autocrats in a democratic society.  I will explain.

Immigration laws, extremely complicated and hard for an outsider to penetrate, can include provisions that give the head of state extraordinary discretion to respond to national security emergencies for which the head of state has exclusive powers to declare. In the past ten days, Trump as invoked so such provisions: (1) the Alien Enemies Act (with regards to Tren de Aragua), and  (2)Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (with regard to Mahmoud Kahlil). He has also invoked (3) the Alien Registration Act (this has not burst into flames as yet).

There are several features of the first two that are attractive to the Trump Administration. First, they brush up against constitutional rights to due process – Trump is using these actions to create a constitutional confrontation that he has been seeking. These are in effect test cases for a broader assault on the judiciary seen (correctly) as protecting these rights.  Contempt of court is a deliberate feature of his challenge.

Second, deportation is in Snyder’s words great theater. “This [Tren de Aragua] deportation was planned as a political spectacle. The deportees were carefully chosen, as was the language used to describe them. The messaging was obviously coordinated in advance. And the entire humiliating procedure was carried out before cameras that were already in place. The videos that are being distributed are not some assemblage of footage caught haphazardly by cell phones. They are the result of fixed cameras, set in place in advance, with camera operators awaiting the action. The result is propaganda film worthy of the 1930s…”

The Tren de Aragua case is a very mild version of the Reichstag fire.

Third, as Presidents Obama and Biden practiced during their tenure, executive action on immigration is an especially accessible means for a president to arrogate to themselves Congressional functions.  

In summary, in these two actions in recent days, Trump has dramatically thrown down the gauntlet to the judicial independence and has further neutered Congress’ role in immigration.  Much easier to do this with immigration than with, for example, climate policy or national defence.

Response to the ICE in Colorado arrest on March 17 of Jeanette Vizguerra, a well known advocate for immigrants, unauthorized, in the U.S. for over 20 years — within 24 hours the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition issued a statement signed by 198 parties, including some immigrant advocates outside the state.

For the story, go to the Colorado Sun here.

San Diego Catholic Charities Mobilizing Resistance to ICE Arrests

Presentation by Appaswamy Vino Pajanor, Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Charities of San Diego, Center for Migration Studies, March 13 2025 (edited transcript).

Introduction Catholic Charities of San Diego, part of the larger Caritas network, is dedicated to humanitarian aid and social justice. Rooted in Christian teachings, the organization assists individuals regardless of their faith or background. In response to increasing immigration enforcement, Catholic Charities has taken proactive measures to support and protect migrant communities.

Background and Context

• Catholic Charities in San Diego operates within the Diocese of San Diego, covering both San Diego and Imperial counties.
• The organization responds to humanitarian needs, whether disasters, hunger, or displacement.
• In 2021, California approached Catholic Charities to assist migrants released by Border Patrol and ICE, leading to the development of large-scale relief efforts.

Formation of the Immigration Task Force

• In December 2024, Cardinal McElroy established an Immigration Task Force to guide the diocese’s response to increasing immigration challenges.
• The goals of the task force include:
  • Showing solidarity with immigrant communities.
  • Producing and distributing resources to inform and support immigrants.
  • Educating parishioners and the broader community on Catholic social teachings regarding immigration.

Strategic Response to ICE Enforcement

1. Real-Time Information Access
   • The organization created two websites: org (English) and plantheemergency.org (Spanish) to provide up-to-date information.
   • A QR code system was developed for quick access to legal rights and emergency contacts.
   • Over 100,000 resource cards were printed and distributed across parishes.
2. Education and Training for Religious Leaders
   • Workshops were organized to educate parish leaders, business managers, and school principals on legal rights and best practices.
   • Training sessions included how to handle ICE subpoenas, legal search parameters, and constitutional protections.
3. Community Outreach and Know-Your-Rights Workshops
   • Virtual and in-person “Know Your Rights” workshops were launched to educate both documented and undocumented individuals.
   • Sessions were held in safe environments such as church sanctuaries and post-mass gatherings to foster trust and comfort.
   • These initiatives reinforce the belief that churches are spaces of refuge and dignity.
4. Visible Solidarity and Support
   • Following Pope Francis’ emphasis on visible accompaniment, Catholic Charities leaders actively engage with affected communities.
   • The organization fosters reassurance that no one is alone in facing these challenges.
   • Personal testimonies highlight the ongoing risks, even for documented individuals, reinforcing the importance of the advocacy work.

Conclusion Catholic Charities of San Diego remains committed to supporting vulnerable populations amid shifting immigration policies. Through strategic planning, real-time resource distribution, community education, and advocacy, the organization stands firm in its mission to uphold human dignity, justice, and compassion.

 

Veronica Cardenas wrote in the Guardian: “[As] I saw firsthand in my 13 years as an assistant chief counsel for ICE the US immigration system was not designed to grant due process or ensure fairness; instead, it was built to prioritize deportation as a fallback when criminal prosecutions weren’t politically desirable or feasible.”

On March 13 Dr. Rasha Alawieh, who works at Brown Medicine and Rhode Island Hospital and held a H-1B visa, was barred at Boston Logan Airport from re-entering the United States. Alawieh is a citizen of Lebanon, to where she had flown from Boston a few weeks before to visit family.

The Boston Globe has covered the case and the following come largely from it.

According to the Globe, Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an order on March 14 saying Alawieh should not be moved outside of Massachusetts without 48 hours notice. But he said that message apparently did not reach immigration officials in time, and a plane carrying Alawieh left for Paris.

Clare Saunders, one of Alaweih’s attorneys, said she went to Logan and tried repeatedly to attract the attention of federal officers. From her account, the officers pointedly refused to acknowledge her presence – much in line with Veronica Cardenas’ observation.

Today, March 17, US Customs and Border Protection told the judge that it has found on her phone photos of Hezbollah fighters and Hassan Nasrallah, secretary general of Hezbollah who was killed on Sept 27,2024 by an Isreali air strike and whose funeral she attended. Per the Globe, according to ICE,  “I have a lot of WhatsApp groups with families and friends who send them,” she replied. “I am a Shia Muslim, and he is a religious figure. He has a lot of teachings, and he is highly regarded in the Shia community. He the head of Hezbollah.” The officer asked if she knew that Hezbollah had been designated as a terrorist organization. “Yes,” she said. “I’m not much into politics. But yes.”

Boston law firm Arnold and Porter, who had initially signed on to represent Alawieh, told Judge Sorokin that they wish to remove themselves from the case.

The White House today (March 15) invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which permits the government to detain and deport persons who are participating in an invasion. The White House said that members of Tren de Aragua( TdA) are part of an Venezuelan-backed invasion: “I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

To win in court, the administration needs to show that members of Tren de Aragua are agents of the government of Venezuela, that Venezuela is waging war against the United States, and that the persons to be deported are members of Tren de Aragua. The ACLU is leading the court challenge to the order.

The order does not affect citizens or lawful permanent residents – the latter exclusion is interesting because in the Mahmoud Kahlil case, the Kahlil, is a lawful permanent resident. The internment of Japanese in World War 2, two thirds of whom were American citizens, was done using Executive Order 9066 (1942) and not the Alien Enemies Act, because the latter did not apply to citizens.

Impacted at this time are the some 300 Tren de Aragua members who have been arrested and are scheduled to be flown and put into prison in El Salvador, for which the United States will reportedly pay El Salvador $6 million for one year of detention. Apparently another 214 persons have been arrested.

The Alien Enemies Act is one of four Alien and Sedition Acts enacted in 1798 in response to threats of war and concerns about enemy sympathizers. It applies only when there is a declared war or de facto incursion of a foreign power.

Among its provisions is the following: “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” The Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins (1948) established the power to deport without court review.

For text and background of all Aliens and Sedition Acts, go here.

 

 

On March 8 ICE arrested and detained Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Kahlil with intent to deport him, applying a provision in immigration law. This action at first blush is an attack on non-citizens who act in ways that expose them to threat of deportation. But the more dangerous threat is that this arrest is part of a broad assault on the autonomy of educational institutions in American society.

This is evident by two further actions of the federal government. One is a demand that Columbia reorganize its internal academic department structure. Another is a demand made to 60 colleges and universities.

Here is a thumbnail review:

Mahmoud Khalil, born in a refugee camp in Syria, moved to the U.S. in 2022 and became a legal permanent resident. He earned a master’s degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in December 2024.  While he was a student, he was a visible participant in anti-Isreal protests that included an encampment on campus in April and May 2024, He was arrested by ICE on March 8, 2025, under the personal order of  Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The legal grounds used by Rubio was a rarely used provision in immigration law, Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which states that an alien is deportable if: “an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States…”

This law is so rarely used that Kahlil’s attorney apparently cited only one instance in recent history of its use, which was an attempt to deport a former Mexican deputy general attorney. The case of Mario Salvador Ruiz-Massieu began in 1996. in 1999 a judge in U.S. Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals wrote that the law was unconstitutional because it violated basic due process protection guaranteed by the constitution. In another setting, none other than Donald Trump’s sister Maryann Trump Barry critiqued the law as unconstitutional.   In 2007, a case brought against eight alleged supporters of terrorism (the “LA 8”), was finally closed with no deportation, having been opened in 1987.

Kahlil’s case will likely go before an immigration court judge.  It seems to me likely that the administration will look to other rarely used emergency provisions in law to deport some one without judicial review.

The federal government has a larger target then a single graduate student. It has suspended $400 million in grants to Columbia. On March 13, the government wrote that the grants will be restored on the condition that Columbia undertake nine steps, including placing an academic department in “receivership” for five years, and down to requiring that masked students display their college ID on their clothing. These demands were made, per the government, due to Columbia’s failure to protect students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 higher education institutions on March 10 demanding that they take specific steps to address antisemitism on campus. It cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  I note that the government has not – yet – demanded that colleges submit information on students and faculty.  The demands on Colombia indicate the degree to which the government feels ready to bring higher education institutions into sustained micro-management..  The Department of Education, which sent the letter, referred to the suspension of grants to Columbia as a consequence of not resolving complaints of harassment.

A broader scenario is one in which the federal government seeks to uproot visages of campus-based DEI and rights of transgendered students, using the same tactics of grant withholding and demands for micro-management. A hypothetical case is one on which an athletic department of a college is attacked with a demand it be placed under receivership.

In his campaign Trump, such as in his “Agenda 47” vision, he talked about plans to  reshape university funding, compliance, and campus culture, particularly by enforcing stricter protest regulations and removing DEI-related initiatives. (Go here.)

An January 20 Executive Order titled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program”  suspended the refugee program indefinitely, effective January 27. (Go here for an earlier posting on this.) On January 24, the State Department instructed the vast network of resettlement partners, many of them religious organizations, to immediately cease all work.  The effect of both orders are reported to be at least: 10,000 refugees who had already been cleared for travel to the U.S. had their plans canceled; 10,000 Afghans who were promised resettlement were left stranded in Pakistan; thousands of refugees already in the U.S. are abandoned by the federal government.

The Cato Institute issued this report on January 27. Also go here for a news report.)

An example of a resettlement partner is World Relief. The following are excerpts from its report to the public:

(Baltimore, MD) January 25, 2025 – Late on Friday [January 24], World Relief received a notice from our longtime governmental partner, the U.S. Department of State, instructing us to “stop all work” under the grant agreement that provides initial resettlement support to newly arrived refugees for the first several months of their lives in the United States.

Early on Saturday [January 25], we received a similar notice impacting lifesaving programs that World Relief carries out internationally in partnership with local church partners through an agreement with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Both “stop orders” cite the legal authority of President Trump’s recent Executive Order on Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.

World Relief is seeking more clarity from our governmental partners on precisely what these instructions mean — and we hope that there may be some misunderstanding and possibility of reconsideration — but we are deeply grieved by the profound harm that these abrupt mandates seem likely to have on vulnerable people who have already endured profound crises.

 

 

This posting in January 2025 has been significantly updated on June 21, 2025. Go here.

Improper presence: If ICE arrests a person who has been in the U.S. for many years without committing any misdemeanors or felonies, but cannot provide evidence of legal status, they will likely face charges of civil violation of immigration law rather than criminal charges.  The person would likely be charged with being “unlawfully present” in the United States. Other examples of unlawful presence leading to civil charges are overstaying a visa, violating the terms of a legal entry (e.g., working on a tourist visa), and remaining in the U.S. after being ordered to leave.

What about improper entry — to enter or attempt to enter the U.S. at a place other than a designated port of entry, elude examination or inspection by immigration officers, or  attempt to enter or enter through false representations or concealment of facts. A first-time offense of improper entry is typically classified as a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. If an individual has been previously convicted of improper entry, any subsequent offense is treated as a felony, subject to a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.

 

Here are the key steps from arrest to deportation from the United States. I focus here on non asylum-related cases There is no clear, comprehensive data on non-asylum cases. They include many people who have been previously deported and came into the United States again, persons who have been arrested for a felony or misdemeanor and determined by law enforcement to be here illegally, and those wanted internationally for crimes abroad.

Arrest and detainment by immigration authorities: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detain the individual after identifying them as being unlawfully present in the U.S.  They may be taken to a detention center or released on bond, parole, or other terms (e.g., ankle monitoring). The detention facility in Aurora Colorado currently holds about 1,200 such persons. All told, there are about 38,000 persons currently detained across the country. A quick profile of detainment around the country is here.

How many of these detainees have committed a crime of the sort we ordinarily call a crime such as theft, assault, fraud, rape, or murder? I have addressed this issue here. Simply stated, very few of detainees have either been convicted or accused of such a crime. There are state misdemeanors such as involve reckless driving. There are also federal misdemeanors and felonies which weigh in. Most likely the greatest share of these federal cases involve the misdemeanor of having entered the country illegally, Including having entered multiple times illegally. The incoming Trump administration has deliberately confused the issue by grouping essentially all unauthorized persons as having committed an illegal act.

Notice to Appear (NTA): The individual receives an NTA, a legal document that states they must appear before an immigration judge. The NTA includes details about why the government believes the person should be deported. This and further court proceedings are skipped when the person has been arrested for having been deported before, in which case the person goes immediately into deportation by ICE.

There are currently about 3.7 million cases before immigration courts. Of these roughly half are asylum cases, the other half not related to asylum.

Court Hearings: The individual appears before an immigration judge to plead their case (with or without legal representation). They may request voluntary departure, asylum, or other forms of relief. The individual can provide evidence, testimony, or witnesses in their defense. ICE may also present its case.

Final Decision: The judge decides whether to issue a deportation order or grant relief.  There are about 35,000 deportation orders issued monthly; That includes was denied amnesty as well as otherwise appearing before the court. Roughly half or more of deportation orders rise from an arrest for a felony or misdemeanor.

Appeals: If the judge orders deportation, the individual can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If denied, further appeals can be made to the federal courts.

Removal Order and Deportation: If all appeals fail or are waived, the deportation order becomes final. ICE coordinates the removal process. This may involve booking a commercial flight or using ICE’s chartered flights for transportation, plus coordinating with the receiving country to ensure they will accept the individual. The individual is escorted out of the U.S. In some cases, a reentry ban may apply for several years, making it illegal for the person to return to the U.S. during that time without special permission.

 

 

 

 

…..

 

 

 

 

There is huge disparity among immigration court judges on asylum cases. Some judges deny 90% of cases; others deny 30%.  In the Boston court, the median denial rate is 60% among 26 judges, of whom five have denial rates over 75% and two have denial rates under 25%. In the Houston court, the median denial rate among 22 judges is 91% with no judge under 70%. Efforts to produce less disparate results through data analysis and training appear to have failed.  The high variances within and between courts cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the courts.

I found in my work in the past that special court systems can go seriously wrong, because they were poorly managed and poorly supported by the broader political/governmental constituency. They are in effect run by key participants without any real accountability to the public. One part but only one part of the problem is that the legal community is usually very deficient in the area of system design and oversight.

Go here for statsticics.