How we should deal with the immigrant problem
Little essay I wrote for the Columbia contest, VERY rushed I kind of wrote it in one day, so that’s definitely not good! Here for safekeeping.
Protests for immigrant protections.
Due process, embedded within the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, ensures that no person, citizen or otherwise, is deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair and lawful procedures. As a bedrock of American legal thinking and tradition, due process has shaped both domestic and international human rights norms. Yet, history reveals that in moments of perceived and actual crisis—during times of war, uncertainty, and existential crisis—governmental claims of necessity have often tested, and sometimes overridden, these protections entirely. Nowhere is this tension more clearly manifest than in the context of immigration and border enforcement, where questions regarding national sovereignty, security, and humanitarian obligation collide and become increasingly difficult to address.
This essay examines the limits of government power in restricting due process at the border, analyzes the legal and historical precedents for such actions, and proposes a framework for reforming due process protections for immigrants in 2025 with the aim of balancing national security and civil liberties in a way that is humane, legal, and practical.
The Realities of Due Process at the Border
In theory, American jurisprudence has long recognized that constitutional protections extend not only to citizens but to “persons,” including undocumented immigrants. But in practice, the border has long been treated as a zone where the government wields greater discretion due to the interest of national security. This divergence from the traditional right to due process at the border comes largely from the doctrine of plenary power, which accords the political branches wide latitude over immigration. The results are procedures that diverge from ordinary due process norms. Expedited removal, for example, permits immigration officers (not judges) to issue removal orders against certain non-citizens without a hearing. In DHS v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld this system, citing the government’s legitimate interest in swift border control that protects the country’s sovereignty and prevents unknown and potentially dangerous people from entering. Additionally, workplace and community Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids often rely on administrative warrants, not judicial ones, based on long-accepted exceptions at or near the border. Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico), put in place by President Trump, require asylum seekers to wait for hearings outside of U.S. territory. But this policy led to asylum seekers living in dangerous and inhumane conditions in Mexico, where they faced significant challenges in accessing legal representation and long wait times for hearings.
These practices are not without justification. Mass illegal migration does present unique logistical and security challenges that directly threaten national security, such as the smuggling of drugs, weapons, humans, contraband, potential criminals, and spies. Sarah Root, who was killed in a car crash by a drunk undocumented immigrant, and Laken Riley, who was “dragged to a secluded area” by an undocumented Venezuelan man and then murdered, are just a few instances of many where innocent Americans died as a result of the open border. And although it is true that, for the most part, undocumented immigrants are peaceful, hardworking people who try to chase the elusive American dream in pursuit of a better life (and many succeed at doing so while bolstering the American economy), pay taxes, and are statistically less violent than American citizens, those deaths should not have happened. Yet a quick glance over American history—for instance, the internment of Japanese Americans in Korematsu v. United States or the detention of Muslim immigrants post-9/11—suggests that the government must tread carefully and act rationally as to not risk unchecked necessity claims that violate fundamental human rights.
Blanket Deference is Unsustainable and Often Unconstitutional
While the government’s claim that border control requires curtailed due process procedures reflects valid concerns about our country’s sovereignty, safety, and capacity, the dangers of excessive, irrational deference are perhaps even more devastating. Mass deportations, paired with the abandonment of Fourth Amendment rights and unidentified ICE agents who are seemingly immune from the law, have led to the wrongful deportations of over 70 American citizens and the accidental arrests of over 600. Just weeks ago, Fox News, a conservative news outlet who strongly values “putting America first,” reported that 23-year-old U.S. citizen Elzon Lemus—born and raised in Long Island—was handcuffed and wrongfully detailed by unidentified ICE agents because he “[looked] like somebody [the agents were] looking for.” The ICE agents then searched him and, upon finding his ID, took and did not return it, and released him. In an attempt to put America first, ICE has, in some instances, blatantly broken the law, ignored natural rights, effectively not put America first, and reverted America back to a situation where citizens are victims to racial profiling and cannot pursue their lives without fear of deportation.
In this frenzy to put America first, ICE’s lack of due process has also, contrary to common belief, actually generated substantial delays in deportations while causing resource drains in the midst of a national debt crisis and an erosion of public confidence. Take the four recent cases of undocumented immigrants being denied due process and deported in breach of court orders. These four cases alone, though few in number, have made thousands of headlines and brought light to what the government blamed “a confluence of administrative errors.” A married father-of-four, Jordin Melgar-Salmeron was deported to El Salvador 28 minutes after he was promised a hearing. A court filing subsequently ordered the government to facilitate his return and required a “supplemental declaration…addressing…what steps the government will take…to facilitate his return to the” U.S. In other words, in an attempt to deport as many “criminals” as possible, Melgar-Salmeron and three others, one of whom was seeking asylum and deported to Mexico despite claiming to have been raped and kidnapped there, were mistakenly deported and have now ordered to be returned at the government’s expense. Money and resources that could have been allocated to other pressing issues like healthcare are instead used to deport people and then bring them back, contributing to the national debt crisis and intimating a lawless, arbitrary system that fuels further polarization and undermines public trust in government.
A Practical Path Forward
Restoring due process at the border and during deportation operations must address constitutional, humanitarian, and administrative concerns without imposing unsustainable costs or bureaucratic bloat. Drawing on legal precedent and the lessons of past failures, I argue for (1) robust notification and transparency requirements and (2) rapid, independent administrative review using existing resources..
Because many immigrants are unaware of their rights, every individual subject to detention, removal, or ICE raids should receive immediate, multilingual notice of their rights and the reasons for their detention, as required by Mathews v. Eldridge’s emphasis on the importance of notice and opportunity to be heard. Immigrants should also be made aware of their right to seek counsel and be given a list of pro bono legal aid organizations, bar association hotlines, and nonprofit resources. This system can be implemented through standardized cards and automated phone and text message systems, resources that are already widely used by the DHS and community organizations. Additionally, there should be a real-time accessible public dashboard for immigration enforcement where key data on border apprehensions, ICE raids, expedited removals, and related enforcement actions are logged and displayed. Like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has a website tracking all reported government fraud and abuse in real-time, and the NYPD’s CompStat dashboard, the DHS should similarly make all information freely available to the public to ensure oversight and provide timely information to the press. Furthermore, research shows that when officers know their actions are logged and subject to public scrutiny, the risk of misconduct decreases. Transparency in law enforcement is not a new concept. ICE arrests should be no different, and, if really increasing the safety of our nation, may even improve the government’s public image.
Rather than creating new courts or federally funded lawyers, existing immigration judges and asylum officers can be organized into Rapid Review Panels to provide summary review of removal and detention decisions within 72 hours. This can be managed by reprioritizing dockets and using remote hearings, which is already used in many immigration courts and allows for timely hearings regardless of the detainee’s location, reducing transportation costs, minimizing delays, and ensuring that even those apprehended in remote areas receive timely review. Rapid Review Panels would offer a cost-effective and practical solution to the lack and delay of deportation proceedings, while embodying independent review.
Conclusion
Restoring due process at the border requires practical, transparent reforms that uphold constitutional principles while respecting fiscal and security realities. By balancing national interests with individual rights through notification, transparency, and rapid summary review, this framework offers a more humane, effective path forward that strengthens both justice and public trust in our immigration system.
