Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Are Trump’s Mass Deportations Leading to State‑Sanctioned Persecution?

Evidence of unlawful arrests, child detentions, and judicial rebukes raises alarms that Trump’s deportation surge is eroding core American rights.

Opinion

A plane flying above.

Analysis of Donald Trump’s second-term immigration crackdown, mass deportation plan, and ICE policies, examining human rights concerns, due process, and historical parallels.

Getty Images, SCM Jeans

For the past 14 months, Americans of all political persuasions have witnessed how Trump’s ICE-related actions have involved aggressive detention and demonization of immigrants and minorities. Historians have not observed this large-scale scope of discrimination behavior since 1953-1955, when President Dwight Eisenhower (R) deported ~1.3 million Mexicans from America, including U.S. citizens of Mexican descent and, in some cases, anyone of Mexican appearance, because agents assumed they were undocumented.

Actions by Mr. Trump and personnel within the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and the FBI have been widely criticized as violating the core American values of equal protection for all families and respect for basic rights. Across the political spectrum, many see these actions as targeting immigrants and minorities in ways that undermine our nation’s shared commitment to fairness, justice, and constitutional equality. Knowing Americans have witnessed two citizens being killed in Minneapolis and one person in Texas by ICE agents, we may be on the verge of systemic persecution and state‑sanctioned violence on a scale not seen in modern American life.


Mr. Trump’s second-term mass-deportation agenda is projected by major human rights and immigration groups to cause large-scale constitutionally protected violations that affect liberty, family unity, due process, and our democracy. For example, the ACLU warned in a 2025 policy analysis that, “Rushed and sweeping mass deportation efforts will unavoidably ensnare families, long-term residents, and even U.S. citizens, resulting in unlawful detentions and breakdowns of due process.” These projections are based on case reviews, government data, and legal precedent.

Let’s take a closer look at this issue.

Human rights impacts of Trump’s 2.0 mass deportation plan

After Trump’s 2.0 inauguration (Jan. 20, 2025), he shut down the asylum process at America’s borders. Over 30,000 pending asylum cases were cancelled, disproportionately impacting people of color. This also means people who have strong human rights protection claims are being summarily refused to even apply for asylum, which is in violation of U.S. and refugee law.

Mr. Trump has stripped Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from well over a million people, instantly turning away people who have peacefully lived in and contributed to the U.S. economy. The U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges that immigrants, including those with TPS, have lower crime rates and lower incarceration rates than native-born U.S. citizens.

Mr. Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents – mostly people of color -- could leave about 222,000 U.S.-born children, born every year, vulnerable to expulsion from the only country they know. Trump’s order is in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

During Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, he called migrants “animals, not human,” “stone-cold killers,” “savages,” people who are “eating cats,” “bad genes,” and that they were “poisoning the blood of our country.” These dehumanizing phrases echo language associated with the far-right and Nazi-accepting “Great Replacement” theory that historically supports ethnic cleansing campaigns. An October 2024 national poll found two-thirds of Republicans endorse some form of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory (The Bulletin).

The "Big Beautiful Bill Act" increased ICE detention funding by over 300 percent. Many allege this permitted a dramatic expansion of an already abusive detention system. Since Trump’s 2.0 inauguration, here’s the data: 212 detention centers, 393,000 arrests, 68,289 in detention centers (as of Feb. 7), 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025 and six in 2026, ~50,000 people in detention centers have no criminal convictions, and the majority of those arrested are of Mexican and Central America descent (USAFacts).

Additionally, at least 3,800 children under age 18 have been booked into ICE detention centers, with over 500 of them under the age of five, and at least 20 were infants. The vast majority of the children are Latino. At least 1,000 of these children were held longer than 30 days, which violates a court-ordered limit on child detention (The Marshall Project).

Violation of rights

Analysts argue that Trump’s mass-deportation policy bypasses citizens’ right to due process and legal representation (guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution). Trump’s deportation procedures greatly weaken America’s 250-year checks and balances posture, with immigration being used as the wedge.

On Jan. 14, Judge William Young – appointed by President Ronald Reagan – called Donald Trump an “authoritarian” and said his administration “conspired to infringe” on the First Amendment rights of activists whom the government has targeted for deportation (USA Today, Feb. 22).

On Jan. 23, Judge Patrick Schiltz – appointed by President George W. Bush – wrote in an opinion, “attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. This list should give pause to anyone – no matter his or her political beliefs – who cares about the rule of law. ICE is not a law unto itself.” (ibid.)

In total, 373 judges – 44 appointed by Trump – have rejected Trump’s mass detention strategy in at least 3,500 cases (Politico, Feb. 12).

Hitler-Trump resemblance

The mother of a close friend – raised in Austria during Hitler’s Nazi regime and an eventual Illinois resident – shared with her daughter that what she experienced in Austria during 1938-1945 is very similar to what Americans are experiencing under Trump’s regime. The mother and other Austrian girls went to the forest during the daytime to hide and not be captured by the Nazi. Likewise, thousands of American parents are hiding their children from ICE.

Resolve

As of Feb. 2026, nearly two-thirds of Americans say ICE and Mr. Trump have gone too far in the immigration crackdown. "We the People" should demand our 535 Congressional delegates to bring Trump’s ethnic cleansing campaign to an abrupt halt; enough is enough.

To turn this outrage into action, call your House member’s district office this week and urge them to publicly oppose Trump’s mass-deportation plan. Ask them to introduce or co-sponsor legislation that restores legal protections for all families and reaffirms America’s commitment to fairness and equal rights. Your single call can help shift the conversation from fear to justice.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less