Trump's Immigrant Removals Aren't Technically Deportations. So What Are They?
Deportation means expelling an alien back to their home country for violating immigration law. Many of the Trump administration's actions don't meet that definition.

Reporters and advocacy groups found it hard to catalogue the Trump administration's chaotic and secretive mass deportation program when it launched this winter, beginning with what word best describes the unprecedented tactics.
Deportation is the most commonly understood term, but it refers to a codified judicial process for expelling an alien back to their home country for violating immigration law—a process that the Trump administration's program barely resembled. In the multiple cases of foreign students who were snatched off the street and had their visas revoked, they were given no due process and provided no evidence of what, if any, laws they had violated.
The Trump administration also summarily expelled several hundred alleged Venezuelan gang members and sent them not to their home country but to a nightmarish Salvadoran megaprison. The only word we have that comes close to describing that, courtesy of the war on terror, is to rendition someone.
At the same time, the administration terminated temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of refugees from countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. There were also reports that the White House was considering revoking legal status for Ukrainians who had fled their war-torn country.
There is a term for that last one: refoulement—the act of returning a refugee or asylum seeker back to the country from which they fled, and where they face serious risk of harm. The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international refugee law.
Refoulement is also a broad enough term to cover the Trump administration's exotic anti-immigrant tactics. Refoulement comes from the French verb refouler, which means "to force back" or "to cause to flow back," originally used to describe the backflow of bodies of water.
As Wall Street Journal columnist Ben Zimmer explains, 19th and 20th century writers began applying the word to the French colonialists' strategy of driving native populations out of an area to make way for white settlers.
Refoulement gained its current definition in the 1951 Refugee Convention, a major United Nations multilateral treaty. Refugee rights became an international concern following World War II, specifically due to several incidents where countries refused asylum to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution.
When it came time to set down the rights of refugees, the convention adopted refouler and refoulement at the suggestion of French and Belgian representatives. The words were loose enough to cover acts against refugees, such as turning them away at the border, while avoiding the judicial and territorial connotations of deportation or expulsion.
Refoulement is, in fact, exactly what the White House brags it is doing: turning back an "invasion" of immigrants through every tool—legal and extralegal—at its disposal.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Refoul Play."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Whatever Chuckles is paying you for this garbage, it’s too much.
Let's define a thing in a way so that I can strawman an argument.
People who don't have the right to be here are getting kicked out. That's deportation. Many have committed additional crimes or acted against US citizens. They need to leave. Some countries refuse to take back their own citizens. I don't want them free in my country or paying for them to be jailed here.
Bottom line: if you don't belong here then get the fuck out. All the handwringing just highlights how silly Reason is.
BUT DUE PROCESS!!!
Many who Trump is targeting are here legally. What sense does it make to crate illegal immigrants out of legal ones?
"Many who Trump is targeting are here legally."
Cite missing shit-for-brains.
Some have temporary legal status that has often been granted under false pretenses. I have no problem with that being revoked if the situation has changed or the person violates the terms of the visa.
Criticizing Israel is thoughtcrime, and thoughtcrime is death. They're getting off easy.
Oh my goodness! What drivel! Removing illegal aliens from our country, no matter the method and law used, has been called "deportations" for at least a hundred years.
Also, the IIRIRA passed under Bill Clinton in the 1990s made it easier to deport -- DEPORT --- illegal aliens without a hearing. It broadened the grounds for deportation as well.
They didn't have hearings to allow them into the country. They aren't entitled to one to be forced to leave.
I'm still waiting on all the law professors that support illegal aliens to announce how many MS13 gang members they've allowed to move into their home and take over their banking accounts. Which law professors have given up their jobs to allow an illegal alien to be placed in the salaried position instead? Oh yeah, that number is still "zero".
So what are they?
US National Defense doing it's job ... Article IV S4, "shall protect each of them against Invasion".
If they aren't actually deporting them, then Reason should be happy, because returning to the US without permission after having previously being deported is a felony.
Aside from refoulement, there is the opposite legal issue at play which to my knowledge doesn't have a specific term, but it is a serious problem nonetheless. It's when a migrant's home country refuses to take him back, which should also be considered an international crime. This was the case with Venezuela until recently, which is why we were sending Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
Funny how globalization types don't want to hold any of the invading countries responsible for their "international crimes". I really don't care where we ship them, but if I could pick I would start with the sanctimonious twats like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, etc. Pull an Abbott/DeSantis on an international scale. Let's see how quickly their tune changes when they have 10 million homeless people with a 2nd-grade education rolling through their whitebread towns.
Put them on a barge, tow them into their country's territorial water, and leave them there. Their country may rescue them if they wish.
With Cuba, we have no excuses in not being able to send them back. We can just take them to Guantanamo Bay, open the gate, and push them out.
Just kill them. Be so much easier. Send their families a bill for the bullets.
Turned them away at the border. Just as Trump started doing in his first term and Biden shat all over.
You missed the point that your hero Biden opened the border fulfilling Soros expectations and stopped applying the laws of the land.Sure it's not the illegal aliens fault for believing the delusional senile POTUS and the DNC and media telling them to enter the US however they can and be given a free living and pass to citizenship which was illegal.
You act like the people being legally deported are citizens or are legal immigrants which NONE of them are. There might be a handful of people swept up in the raids and their situations will be sorted out accordingly. A handful among hundreds of thousands is unfortunate but very good odds considering what is being done.
Why should a single Ukrainian (or any other European or Asian or South American or African) be seeking, or given, asylum half a world away from their homeland, which they would be expected to return to someday? There are no other countries nearby that might be more suitable for such temporary arrangements?
It is not unreasonable, in the specific instance of Afghans, to give asylum in the US to those Afghans who are in danger of persecution and death because of their giving assistance to the US - in many cases, with the assurance of protection.
It is unreasonable if you are a hate filled MAGA.
Wah
So now redefining words is kosher again when you do it... STFU about the alien invasion then because if you get to adjust definitions then so do your opponents (and given recent news your opponents have a better case).
Yup. Redefining words is right there near the top of the list of things Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate.
Sad.
Bartender: Closing time! (You know the rest.)
Reason: But my wife won't let me back in the house.
What is the proper response from the bartender?
A. OK, just build a camp over in the corner booth.
B. I guess you can be a part owner.
C. Gosh, that's so sad. Here is my daughter.
D. All of the above.
Shut up about due process already. It's almost as bad as your yammering about tariffs. What you don't understand is that due process is reserved for the people and for citizens. Foreigners are neither. They're vermin. So take your leftist due process and stick it up your ass with your complaints about tariffs, and your nonsense about taxation without representation. Trump is a fucking king alright? Instead of Divine Right he has a Popular Mandate. Same thing. That means he can arrest anyone he wants and create any tax that he wants. If you don't like it, leave the country.
/if Trump defenders were honest
Cite the actual law that says this.
Haha. Professor molly is somehow not familiar with the bitter sarc schtick. Too funny.
Idiot.
Reason: here is a word you've been using incorrectly and here is the preferred word choice.
Cultists: our brains hurt!
When you have absolutely no argument, fall back on pedantry!
SRG2 is a TDS-addled steaming pile of TDS-addled shit who projects his cult membership on others. And needs to fuck off and die.
When you have absolutely no argument, fall back on pedantry!
C.J. Ciaramella is a TDS-addled steaming pile of TDS-addled shit who needs to fuck off and die.
How many of you window lickers mis-used the word "quarantine" during your years of raping our Constitutional Rights?
Another misused word within this whole mess: Immigrant.
It is usually just 'migrant' with these douche nozzles. They can't get that right either.
Trump's Immigrant Removals Aren't Technically Deportations. So What Are They?
Is the labelling here of illegal aliens as "immigrants" just following some protocol like the AP style guide or gaslighting? (honest question.. although I suppose the answer can easily be - 'both')
Na ... Nahasa ... Notgonnaworkhereanymoreanyway
Refoulement is, in fact, exactly what the White House brags it is doing: turning back an "invasion" of immigrants through every tool—legal and extralegal—at its disposal.
Correction: Refoulement (and Rendition) is, in fact, exactly what the American People WANT the White House to do to every single border jumping criminal, crocodile-tear asylum-seeker, and visa overstay though every tool - legal and extralegal, or hell even illegal - at its disposal.
Nobody cares anymore CJ. The illegals just need to be rounded up and shipped out. Yesterday.
The Trump administration also summarily expelled several hundred alleged Venezuelan gang members and sent them not to their home country but to a nightmarish Salvadoran megaprison.
And, if you had your pulse on the American People at all, you would have heard them cheering, "THIS IS WHAT I VOTED FOR!"
But you don't have your pulse on them. You never leave your BlueSky EC.
In California, no single race or ethnic group forms a majority of the population. While Latinos are the largest group, they make up around 40% of the state's residents. White residents account for approximately 34%, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders comprise about 16%. Black or African Americans make up around 6% of the population.
About 27.3 percent of the state's residents are foreign-born, and 19.8 percent of its U.S.-born residents live with at least one immigrant parent.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, roughly one in three residents is foreign-born. This translates to about 31% of the population.
Until you've lived it, you have no idea.
Great. Lets kick California out of the union and they can be their own failed welfare state that's already been effectively conquered by Mexico.
Until then, measure the demographics nationally.
I'm realizing that the people who've been talking about due process lately have absolutely no clue what due process is. What extralegal tools is the government currently using? Are you aware that the Secretary of State gets to decide if a person's visa is revoked? That determination is left up to the Secretary of State's judgment by law, not a judges. No due process is needed for the Secretary of State to determine if a visa is revoked or not. Maybe if you'd read and comprehend the law instead of throwing around buzz words you'd comprehend things better? How do you send someone back to the country they left of that country refuses to take them back?