Within Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, we have seen several highly controversial cases, from the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil and the revoking of his green card, the arrest of Mohsen Mahdawi and the threat of removal of his green card, to the illegal and unjust deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the detainment of U.S. citizens and high profile lawyers at points of entry, and to ICE agents smashing car windows illegally to detain individuals, among many other cases.
In each of these instances, we see the administration pushing the limits of our constitutional protections, from arrests for exercising the right to free speech, to the blatant refusal to provide due process, to illegal search and seizure. And while the administration claims it’s only targeting criminals, they have been detaining U.S. citizens as well.
In fact, in many of these cases, these individuals were otherwise law abiding residents. However, the framing of these individuals as criminals only serves to manufacture consent for these illegal actions, allowing the administration to test the limits of our rights.
Khalil, Mahdawi, and Abrego serve as particularly effective targets. They are individuals who were law abiding or had proper legal protections. They are individuals who are in the same legal position as most other law abiding residents. If the administration can successfully violate their rights, they can successfully violate anyone else’s. Point being, this will not stop at the “criminals,” this will inevitably affect everyday Americans.
Law is based off of precedent, so if precedent exists to remove the green cards of people who were exercising their right to free speech based solely on vague claims and loose evidence, then precedent exists to remove the green cards of otherwise law abiding residents based off of loose and vague claims as well. If the administration can get away with deporting a legally protected migrant, then they can get away with deporting any other legally protected migrant.
This falls in line with the administrations own stated goals. Donald Trump, throughout his campaign repeatedly praised Operation Wetback, which infamously deported legal residents as well as U.S. citizens. He ran on promises to repeat a similar project. If the administration can get away with the deportation of Abrego, Khalil, and Mahdawi, then it establishes the precedent for the administration to fulfill its goal of mass deportations of migrants, legal residents included.
For example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a criminal, and in fact is in a very similar position to many migrants you may know: migrants who are allowed to stay on work permits, asylum, withholding of removal, etc. If the Administration gets away with the unjust deportation of Abrego and establishes that as precedent, then it establishes precedent to do the same with your neighbor, your friends, your family.
Khalil and Mahdawi were green card holders who violated no laws, they only exercised their right to free speech. If the administration can get away with the revoking of their green cards and their deportations, then it sets the precedent to do the same with other law abiding green card holders.
The framing of these individuals as criminals only serves to manufacture consent amongst the public for the government to test and unravel our constitutional rights without anyone batting an eye. This will ultimately set precedent for the very same things to happen to you or to people you know.
It isn’t just a migrant issue either. If the administration can simply arrest and deport any individual or ship out any detainee, citizen or not, to a foreign country and subvert any due process, then they can target just about anyone for any reason with no evidence whatsoever.
This isn’t just about “criminals.” This could open the door to political suppression and dangerous overreach towards anyone the government determines as an enemy: dissidents, political opponents, disruptive legal professionals, etc. In the worst case scenario, you are who the government says you are, and if you’re deemed to be a criminal, what due process do you have to say otherwise? What sort of power do you have to say otherwise?
Zinnia 
Leave a comment