Trump Bypasses Courts: Nationwide Expansion of Rapid Deportations Unleashed

In a significant policy update, the Trump administration has reintroduced a controversial border security measure that is drawing criticism from legal experts and immigrant advocates alike. This revived policy allows for expedited deportations, potentially endangering Latino Arizonans of all citizenship statuses through increased risks of racial profiling and immediate removal from the U.S. without a court hearing.

On Friday, the White House announced the official reinstatement of a 2019 directive that permits accelerated deportation for immigrants unable to demonstrate more than two years of continuous presence in the country. Under this expedited removal procedure, those detained can be swiftly expelled without the opportunity for a judicial review.

The expedited removal policy was previously restricted under the Biden administration, applying only to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of the border with fewer than two weeks of presence in the U.S. The new policy, however, greatly expands the scope of who can be targeted, leading experts to express alarm over potential mass deportations.

Legal specialists view this expansion as a mechanism for the administration to fulfill its commitment to expel over 11 million undocumented immigrants, undermining due process protections. “This is a huge expansion that sets the groundwork for raids, rapid removal, and racial profiling,” said Laura Belous, an attorney with the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project.

Lynn Marcus, director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Arizona, reasoned that removing these protections enables the government to swiftly enforce deportations. She argues this transformation is likely to ensnare individuals who have resided in the U.S. for extended periods, including legal permanent residents and even U.S. citizens.

In Arizona, many unauthorized immigrants have lived in the country for over a decade. According to the Migration Policy Institute, approximately 72% of the 273,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona have resided in the U.S. for this duration. Furthermore, a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicates about 250,000 legal permanent residents in the state could also be at risk.

Critics assert that the rapid nature of the expedited removal process could lead to unjust deportations. The policy’s vagueness regarding what constitutes adequate proof of continuous residency places the burden on individuals to convince arresting officers of their status, lacking clear standards for the type of documentation required. Marcus voiced concerns about the impracticality of the two-year requirement, emphasizing that many legitimate residents may struggle to provide retrospective evidence of their presence.

Racial profiling is anticipated to escalate under the newly broadened policy, with officers likely focusing on individuals perceived to have foreign appearances. Historical analyses of law enforcement practices indicate systemic bias against Hispanic individuals, highlighting a risk that lawful residents could become vulnerable to wrongful deportation due to their appearance.

“As the policy expands, there’s a considerably higher chance of misidentifying and wrongfully detaining individuals,” explained Belous. Incidents supporting this concern have surfaced previously, with some U.S. citizens and non-hispanic residents being victimized by similar policies.

This trend has implications for Native Americans in Arizona as well. Tribal leaders are raising alarms about immigration officials wrongfully interrogating indigenous Arizonans about their citizenship status, underscoring issues of racial profiling within these communities.

The new expedited removal framework poses a dire challenge for those facing deportation. Individuals may only seek relief through narrowing avenues such as asylum claims or cancellation of removal, both of which are subject to strict scrutiny and lengthy processes. Unfortunately, even with eligibility, the path to acquiring legal status is muddled by long waiting periods hampered by federal caps on applications.

As the expanded policy unfolds, organizations like the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project anticipate an uptick in demand for legal assistance. Challenges to the new measures are emerging in the courts, with advocacy organizations already soliciting federal intervention against the policy. Some local officials, including Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Governor Katie Hobbs, have publicly opposed the implementation of mass deportations amidst this controversial policy shift.