The deportations took place on Saturday March 15, immediately after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act. The White House statement (here) is not time stamped, but must have taken place between the morning and boarding of the first plane, As now early March 24, the government has not substantively responded to Judge James Boasberg’s demand for an accounting of the flights in the context of his order to halt them, which per the time line below was issued before the third of three flights took off. Attorney General Bondi has severely criticized Boasberh in news interviews.

According to the BBC, all Eastern Daylight Time:

5:25 PM A first flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to data from tracking site Flightradar24. Takeoff happens while a hearing held by Judge Boasberg is paused. Earlier that afternoon, the White House said Trump was invoking the Alien Enemies Act

5:44 PM A second flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to Flightradar24

6:05 PM Boasberg’s hearing resumes and the government declines to say if deportations are ongoing, according to ABC News

6:46 PM: Boasberg orders the government to turn around the two planes if they are carrying non-citizens, according to ABC

7:26 PM: Boasberg issues his written order for a temporary restraining order, according to ABC

7:36 PM: A third flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to Flightradar24

 

ICE, which manages arrests and detention within the U.S. vs the areas at and near the borders, has been detaining about 750 persons a week. This is not much different than in prior administrations.  Many of these arrests likely end in deportation. Only 1% of all deportations involve a person who has a criminal record in the U.S. (Go here.)

This is about the deportation on March 15 to El Salvador’s prisons of several hundred Venezuelans. Attorneys have filed suit in Federal D.C. district court (Judge James Emanuel Boasberg, J.J.G. v. Trump). Jerce Reyes Barrios is one of the persons deported.

The New Republic writes, “According to an attorney [Linette Tobin]…Reyes Barrios’s petition for asylum was pending, with a hearing scheduled for April, when he was deported March 15 to El Salvador without any notice to his family or attorney…. The government accuses Reyes Barrios of being a member of the Tren de Aragua gang based on two “Gang Membership Identification Criteria.” The first was a tattoo on his arm of a crown on top of a soccer ball with a rosary and the word “Dios,” which is Spanish for “God.” Reyes Barrios chose this tattoo because it resembles the logo for Spanish soccer team Real Madrid. The second was a social media post with a picture of Reyes Barrios making “rock and roll” or “I love you” hand gestures.”

Here is Reyes Barrio’s submission to the court. Here are many other submissions.

By now, some one, such as the National Immigration Forum and Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, should step forward and serve centrally to collect, assess and report on ICE and other immigration law enforcement actions on a weekly basis. Uncollated anecdotal reporting is not enough. Unanalyzed raw data such as from the estimable TRAC system is not enough. We need to know patterns of arrests, detentions and deportations; organized responses by immigrant support groups, sponsors of temporary humanitarian visa holders, and state and local governments.  A comprehensive regular reporting system is overdue.

The administration has implemented a key strategy significantly to increase arrests, detention and deportation along unauthorized persons periods.  It will, in some, overcome one basic barrier, which is that while crossing the border in an unauthorized way is a misdemeanor, being in the country while they’re not authorized this is civil violation. Being a civil violation there is no authority to detain an individual, much less to impose a court judgment of a fine or jail time.

Alien Registration Act

One February 25, the administration issued a requirement that all aliens who a present in the United States without a visa register with the State Department. This is designed to make being in the U.S. a misdeameanor unless one registers.  (Go here.) And if one registers DHS can find them.

The registration for (AR-2) here which appears to be the one used asks for name at time of entry, other names used, date of first arrival, address, years lived in the United States, date of birth, citizenship/Nationality, usual occupation, fingerprint, gender, present occupation, and marital status. (Go here.)

The American Immigration Council summarizes the language in law:

8 U.S.C. section 1302, codified via the Alien Registration Act of 1940, requires all noncitizens over the age of 14 who have not already registered, and who are in the U.S. for more than 30 days, to register with the federal government within 30 days of their arrival. \

8 U.S.C. sections 1306(a) Under section 1306(a), any noncitizen who “willfully fails” to register with the government (or the parent of any noncitizen under 14 who fails to do so) after 30 days is guilty of a federal misdemeanor crime. If charged and convicted, it allows the noncitizen (or parent) to be sentenced to up to six months in jail and/or fined up to $1,000. Any adult who fails to carry proof of registration can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $100.

Part 6: Most Americans hold contradictory feelings and expectations about immigration. This perpetuates paralysis and instability in immigration politics.

I have read many opinion polls on immigration and spoken with people who self-describe as inclusivist or restrictionist. Many, if not most, Americans have conflicting feelings and expectations about immigration. These conflicts may not be spoken or even self-acknowledged. Many people appear to feel as follows: “I like immigrants, but not so many.”

An individual’s thoughts about immigrants and immigration policy arise from a sponge-like absorption of family, workplace, neighborhood, customer and patient service, and other encounters, past and present. It cannot be overemphasized that the entire political class in the United States, with the exception of radical restrictionists, has failed to stimulate any open and thoughtful discussion of immigration. The stereotype-drenched style of public discourse on immigration leaves the country wide open to exploitative behaviors, such as presidents running immigration policy by fiat.

At this point, very early in the Trump administration, there has yet to arise an articulate defense of an inclusivist vision of immigration, or simply a defense of the status quo.

___________________________________________________

 

Part 5: Nobody, including the Trump administration, can prove whether immigration overall helps or hurts American workers.

My guess is that it generally helps, sometimes spectacularly so, while in other cases it hurts. A summary figure is impossible because of the complexity and adaptability of the American workplace and workforce.

What most of us may probably want, when we think about it, is for foreign workers to complement U.S.-born workers and, by doing so, create jobs for all workers. For example, bringing in a noted chef from Istanbul might enable you to launch a successful Turkish restaurant, or an Indian medical doctor might allow a community health center to stay open on weekends.

Trump’s mass deportation campaign is essentially challenging home builders to pay higher wages to attract U.S.-born workers—and to do so virtually overnight. Sometimes technology can replace foreign workers. But while using robots to replace roofers is conceptually feasible, it cannot happen until robots can carry heavier payloads.

The scenario we want to avoid is one in which employers develop a business model that depends on exploiting workers, especially those who are unauthorized, lack formal skills, or have little English proficiency.

Part 4: The crisis at the southern border reflects a global crisis of how to implement a convention created in 1951.

The UN Convention on Refugees, established in 1951, sets international standards for protecting individuals fleeing persecution. It defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is unable or unwilling to return home. The Convention outlines refugees’ rights, including access to asylum, education, and employment, and prohibits forcible return.

A key provision in the Convention, and since 1980 in American law, is that countries must in good faith respond to requests for asylum by anyone standing on their soil. This, of course, creates an enormous incentive to cross borders, even multiple borders, to reach target countries such as the United States. Many who cross a border to claim asylum have a mix of persecution, economic distress, climate distress, and societal collapse issues, which asylum officers and courts must sort out. Huge case backlogs exist,

These standards have not been rewritten in over seven decades, which have seen the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979–1989, 6 million refugees), the breakup of Yugoslavia (1991–1999, 4 million), the Rwandan Genocide (1994, 2 million), the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (4 million), the Ukraine War (8 million), and extreme discord within countries including Myanmar, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and South Sudan (perhaps 25 million). Receiving countries have used complicated protocols to accept, at least temporarily, and resolve inflows.

Countries have been trying to impose greater controls over the volume of inflows and to change how they handle those who gain entry. The bipartisan Senate bill of early 2024, which Trump shot down, modestly embraced the following strategies for asylum control. Trump II has been far more aggressive:

• Shut down most or all asylum programs, notwithstanding commitments made to United Nations conventions and their own laws.
• Fast-track reviews, which for the United States involves adjudications immune from judicial review, plus vastly increasing the capacity of immigration courts. The executive branch and Congress have significantly failed to increase immigration court capacity as asylum applications have risen over the past decade.
• Push asylum reviews away from borders and into remote locations. The United Kingdom’s Conservative Party sought to fly asylum applicants to Rwanda. The Trump administration is trying to reintroduce Stay in Mexico.
• Deportation to cooperating countries—the administration has worked out agreements with several Latin American countries to receive non-nationals.

It is noteworthy that neither the European Union nor the United States has made any overt move to withdraw from the UN Convention or rewrite its standards. The Trump administration may do so.

Part 3: Humanitarian programs to protect persons fleeing from distress were manipulated by Biden. Trump is destroying them.

Prior to the Biden administration, we admitted for permanent residence and potential naturalization roughly one million persons a year. During the Biden years, total influx averaged close to three million a year. Trump is engaged in throwing many of these recent arrivals out.

Humanitarian programs include one for refugees. This program is coordinated with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees the care and protection of over 30 million persons who have fled their country. The UNHCR, American embassies, and nonprofit organizations arrange for individuals to be granted refugee status and flown to the United States. Consistent with the generally parsimonious character of humanitarian programs, refugees entering the United States receive a small subsidy for a few months and must repay the cost of their flight to the United States. By law, the executive branch sets a maximum cap on the number of admissions per year. The Biden administration set it high at 125,000 a year. The Trump administration, during his first term and now his second term, appears intent on destroying the program outright.

Another humanitarian program leading to eventual citizenship is asylum. What distinguishes an asylum case from a refugee case is that for asylum, the individual must be on American soil to apply. (Once a refugee enters the United States, their legal status is essentially the same as an asylee’s.) Persons are eligible to apply for asylum regardless of the nature of their arrival and legal status. This program has no cap. During the last years of the first Trump administration and the first years of the Biden administration, asylum applications increased—alarmingly so during the Biden years.

Biden was never candid with the public about his rerouting of asylum seekers into other ways to enter the United States. He used two temporary stay programs—humanitarian parole and temporary protected status—to shepherd hundreds of thousands of persons into the United States. He did this to reduce pressure on the southern border. These programs hit national media due to the large number of Haitians who appeared in Springfield, Ohio, and Latin Americans, notably Venezuelans, in New York City. In many localities across the country, the surge of temporary authorizations burdened public shelter and local education systems, without federal financial help.

It is no surprise that the second Trump administration is systematically dismantling these temporary humanitarian programs. The beneficiaries are well known in federal databases. Many of them will likely voluntarily self-deport. But many will be deported by ICE. Given that these programs involve sponsoring families and organizations, public outcry may be strong. Three Republican Congressmen from the Miami area quickly spoke out against cancellations.