Stephen Miller, a key advisor to President Donald Trump on immigration issues, has ignited a firestorm by openly advocating for the mass deportation of immigrants, including those with pending asylum applications.
His controversial suggestion involves denying these individuals the right to a judicial hearing or individual case review.
In a video that has quickly spread across social media platforms, Miller argued that the American legal system should not, and indeed cannot, provide due process to millions whom he claims should never have entered the country.
"There are 15 million illegal immigrants. If each of them were to receive the trial you're asking for, it would take centuries to deport them!" he declared.
For Miller, the absence of legal procedures upon entry justifies the removal of any subsequent protections.
"There was no due process bringing them in, so there's no due process kicking them out. Get them out of my country!" he added.
These statements have elicited immediate backlash from attorneys, scholars, and lawmakers, who argue that Miller's stance is not only politically extreme but also fundamentally contradicts the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution and immigration law.
Due Process is Unconditional
Immigration experts emphasize that the right to due process is not contingent upon how an individual entered the United States.
Federal legislation and numerous judicial rulings affirm that anyone on U.S. soil is entitled to legal procedures, particularly when applying for asylum.
This right encompasses the ability to present a case, be heard by a judge, and receive a reasoned decision.
Although asylum is challenging to obtain and many applicants are eventually denied, the law ensures access to the legal process.
During a recent Congressional debate, Congressman Goldman stressed that deporting individuals with pending asylum claims would be a direct violation of the law.
He explained that the state must first ascertain whether a migrant qualifies for international protection.
An Overburdened System Fuels Deportation Rhetoric
Miller's comments come amid a profound crisis in the immigration system.
Immigration courts are currently dealing with over three million pending cases, resulting in years-long delays and unprecedented backlogs.
Of these, nearly one and a half million are unresolved asylum applications.
The shortage of judges and asylum officers has turned the system into a permanent bottleneck, incapable of responding swiftly and effectively.
Critics of Miller's position argue that this institutional collapse is being used as a political tool to justify the elimination of due process, rather than advocating for a structural reform to enhance the system's capacity.
The Credible Fear Interview Logjam
A significant bottleneck lies in the "credible fear" interview, a crucial step for asylum seekers to advance their cases.
Thousands of migrants wait months, sometimes years, for this interview.
Without this initial assessment, applicants remain in legal limbo, unable to progress or receive a definitive decision.
Experts agree that this paralysis is a major contributor to the current chaos in immigration courts.
Beyond Illegal Immigration
Miller's recent remarks are part of a broader narrative that extends beyond illegal immigration.
In a recent analysis by The New York Times, the paper noted that Miller has started portraying migrants—and their descendants—as a structural problem for the United States.
Miller claims that "seven decades of migration have produced millions who take more than they give," a statement that the Times noted has been debunked by numerous studies.
In comments to Fox News, Miller went further by blaming entire communities for alleged integration failures.
"With many of these migrant groups, not just the first generation fails," he said, citing the Somali community as an example.
The New York Times highlighted that this rhetoric accompanies the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, aiming to prevent the children of undocumented migrants from automatically obtaining U.S. citizenship.
Experts quoted by the Times and other research centers have questioned the basis of Miller's arguments.
Migration studies indicate that the children of immigrants often achieve higher educational levels than their parents, earn better incomes, and progressively integrate into American society.
Julia Gelatt, associate director of the Migration Policy Institute's policy program, pointed out that "study after study has shown the upward mobility of immigrants' children."
For many analysts, Miller's rhetoric is not driven by empirical evidence but by an ideological view of migration as a perpetual cultural threat.
Stephen Miller's recent remarks on pending asylum cases bring to the forefront a crucial question: How far can the state go in its attempt to control immigration without violating basic constitutional principles?
While the White House advocates for increasingly aggressive measures, lawyers and human rights advocates insist that due process and the right to asylum are not political concessions but legal obligations.
Key Questions on Immigration Policy
What is Stephen Miller's proposal regarding pending asylum seekers?
Stephen Miller has proposed the mass deportation of immigrants, including those with pending asylum applications, without the right to a judicial hearing or individual case review.
How do critics respond to Miller's stance on immigration?
Critics argue that Miller's position is politically extreme and contradicts the U.S. Constitution and immigration law, which guarantee due process to anyone on U.S. soil, regardless of how they entered the country.
Why is the U.S. immigration system currently overburdened?
The system faces over three million pending cases, with a significant backlog in asylum applications, due to a shortage of judges and asylum officers, creating a bottleneck that contributes to long delays.