Representative Image / istock

Earlier this year, more than 100 Indian citizens were deported from the U.S. on military planes as a part of the Trump deportation campaign. Two of the deportees were handcuffed at the time of deportation, implying law enforcement's autonomy in restraint. All 104 deportees alleged violation of their constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights, including protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to counsel, and self-incrimination in the process of deportation.

Deportation is a civil proceeding, which restricts constitutional safeguards. Restraints in hearings are legally questionable regarding the treatment of deportees. This analysis examines implications from U.S. case law. Deportation is civil in nature, but minimum human rights and dignity should be ensured during deportation proceedings.

Legal framework of deportation

Deportation is considered a criminal penalty, but the U.S. Supreme Court considers it a civil issue. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 730 (1893), the Court stated, "The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is an administrative function to resettle immigrants." However, deportation has catastrophic consequences, sometimes worse than criminal penalties. Justice Louis Brandeis in Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922), stated that deportation can result in "the loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living."

The Supreme Court affirmed the civil character of deportation in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1481 (2010), without criminalising it, acknowledging its gravity. This demarcation undermines numerous constitutional safeguards in criminal trials.

Constitutional Implications of Civil Classification

Because deportation is a civil proceeding, immigrants facing removal are denied many constitutional protections that are standard in the criminal justice system:

1.        No Right to Appointed Counsel: Deportation proceedings deny non-citizens access to court-provided legal representation, in contrast to criminal proceedings where representation is ensured (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963)).

2.        Exclusion from Protection Against Retroactive Legislation: Criminal legislation cannot be applied retroactively (U.S. Const. art. I, §9, cl. 3), but immigration law can. In Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954), the Court affirmed the retroactive application of immigration legislation.

3.        No Miranda Warnings in Immigration: Miranda warnings (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) do not apply in immigration hearings, and the majority of immigrants are unaware of their rights (Navia-Duran v. INS, 568 F.2d 803, 808 (1st Cir. 1977)).

4.        Denial of the Right to a Speedy Trial: Criminal defendants are entitled to a speedy trial (Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519-21 (1972)), but immigrants face prolonged detention due to backlogged courts (Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2008)).

5.        Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence: Illegally obtained evidence is usually not admitted, but in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Supreme Court held that this rule does not generally apply in deportation proceedings.

Disproportionate Consequences of Deportation

Deportation may be more inhumane than criminal punishment. In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 303 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that life without parole for nonviolent offences was "cruel and unusual punishment." Immigration law does not follow proportionality, causing long-term family disruption, loss of employment, and life-threatening returns (Rivas-Melendrez v. Napolitano, 689 F.3d 732, 739 (7th Cir. 2012)).

Major reforms to enhance justice in immigration are:

• Guaranteed Legal Aid Access: Noncitizens, particularly vulnerable groups like children and the mentally disabled, must be provided with court-appointed lawyers.
• Abolish Retroactive Deportation Laws: Congress must bar deportation laws from being used retroactively.
• Due Process Protections: Immigrants need rights like Miranda warnings and access to lawyers.
• Court Efficiency: Immigration court backlogs must be resolved with reforms and more staff.
• Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence: The exclusionary rule should be applied to deportation proceedings, such as in criminal cases.

The distinction between deportation as a civil matter and criminal punishment creates significant legal disparities, undermining justice and due process. While the government enforces immigration policy through deportations, the severe consequences warrant constitutional protections similar to those in criminal proceedings. Implementing reforms would ensure fairness, protect human dignity, and align deportation procedures with fundamental American legal principles.

 

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of New India Abroad.)