Alexandra Wagner is a graduate student at American University, where she studies International Development with a specialization in global justice in Latin America. She currently works at the Latin American Youth Center, where she oversees compliance for programs that support homeless and unstably housed youth. This program facilitates access to education, employment, and housing services as part of a holistic approach to long-term stability and self-sufficiency.
The United States government continues to undermine migrants’ constitutional rights in the name of immigration enforcement. This disturbing truth has been brought to light after the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on March 15, 2025. Abrego Garcia is a Salvadorian man who had legal protection from deportation under U.S. immigration law. Under a legal system that claims due process for all, including non-citizens, Abrego Garcia was deported without a hearing, warning, or regard for court orders. While his story has gained headlines, sadly he represents countless immigrants who are routinely denied their right to due process via detainment or deportation. His case reveals a growing reliance on militarized policies that erode fundamental rights and endanger human dignity for noncitizens within the United States.
A Legal and Moral Failure
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that no person, citizen or non-citizen, can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures (due process). Due to life-threatening gang violence in El Salvador, Abrego Garcia exercised this right in 2019 when he was granted legal protection against deportation. Despite this protection though, in March 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported Abrego Garcia disregarding federal court orders. In fact, a lawyer for the federal government admitted that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was a mistake, acknowledging that he had been wrongfully removed despite having legal protection. Only with Supreme Court intervention was Abrego Garcia safely returned to the United States.
With the U.S. federal government’s blatant disregard for legal safeguards in immigration enforcement, a clear corrosion of due process exists. Policies like “Remain in Mexico” and “expedited removal” have normalized immigration procedures that disregard basic due process protections by denying individuals the opportunity to be heard in court. While immigrants do not have a constitutional right to government-funded legal representation, they are permitted to bring legal counsel when hearings occur. However, in cases like Abrego Garcia’s, no hearing was granted at all, stripping him of even the chance to defend himself.
These practices undermine the basic right of due process by denying individuals the opportunity to present their asylum cases or challenge government mistakes. Even those with a court order barring removal, like Abrego Garcia, are regularly denied legal protections as immigration enforcement chooses efficiency over true justice. This is dangerous to all people in the United States, regardless of citizenship, because once one group of people’s rights are violated, everyone’s rights are at risk.
Militarizing the Border, Dismantling Rights
The degradation of immigrant rights is fundamentally tied to the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the last two decades, administrations on both sides of the aisle have transformed the Southern border into a pseudo-warzone with policies such as “prevention through deterrence”. As the Brennan Center notes, this militarization has become an “opaque and extralegal security apparatus” that avoids congressional oversight and threatens constitutional protections.
This strategy, intended to close off border entry, actually funnels migrants onto more dangerous routes, increasing their need for smugglers and risk of death. Migrants are simultaneously criminalized for using illicit channels while being denied access to legal ones. This manufactured danger not only justifies further enforcement spending but also shifts public perception by framing migration as a threat rather than a humanitarian issue rooted in global inequality and displacement.
Under pressure from the U.S. government, Mexico has also engaged in militarization by deploying their National Guard to the Southern border. The Oxford-published study The Militarization of Mexico’s Border and Its Impacts on Human Rights details how the “use of military tactics, strategy, technology, equipment and forces” to control migration undermines human rights protections and pushes migrants toward more dangerous, life-threatening paths.
Militarized Borders, Civilian Consequences
Border militarization has created a dangerous environment that blurs the lines between immigration enforcement and military policing. Under these policies, everyone, including U.S. citizens, is at risk of racial profiling, unwarranted stops, and unconstitutional surveillance. Particularly, Latinx residents near the border are disproportionately targeted, as the U.S. border enforcement turns its dehumanizing practices onto its own people.
These practices not only violate domestic law, but also disregard binding international agreements. The principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits returning individuals to countries where they face serious harm. As such, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly condemned U.S. and Mexican border militarization as incompatible with basic human rights norms. In doing so, the U.S. and its partners have built a border regime that treats human rights as optional, a dangerous model with consequences that extend far beyond immigration policy.
A Path Forward through a Broken System
While Americans may wish to classify Abrego Garcia’s case as unique, doing so misses the deep systemic failures and institutional compromises of human rights happening within our borders. The U.S. government has incrementally legitimized a border regime which diminishes migration to criminality and prioritizes deterrence over justice. The Trump policies accelerated this trajectory, but the Biden administration has also not been able to fully reverse it. As the highest court in the country, the most recent decision by the Supreme Court affirming that deportations without hearings violate constitutional rights should be irrefutable. However, as the treatment of immigrants in the U.S. shows, having rights on paper means little without real enforcement and accountability.
Moving forward, migration policy must center human rights by upholding due process, expanding legal pathways, and decreasing harmful border militarization. This involves investing in immigration courts, ceasing expedited deportations, and ensuring that the principle of non-refoulement is not a mere formality but an effective legal protection. It also demands holding the highest-level officials responsible for unauthorized removals, regardless of whether there is Democratic or Republican leadership.
Conclusion
Legal protections do not stop at the border. In the United States, regardless of citizenship, people are entitled to dignity, justice, and protection of human rights. The unconstitutional deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a human rights failure. While due process is being reaffirmed by the courts, policymakers must confront the larger system that perpetuated this violation of basic human rights. Constitutional rights cannot coexist with militarized borders. So, to honor its legal and moral obligations, the United States will have to choose principle over fear by dismantling a border regime that treats human dignity as negotiable.
Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or find us on LinkedIn and BlueSky.
How to cite this blog post (Harvard style):
A. Wagner. (2025) Deported Without Due Process: How Border Militarization Undermines Constitutional and Human Rights . Available at:https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/border-criminologies-blog/blog-post/2025/09/deported-without-due-process-how-border-militarization. Accessed on: 17/09/2025