‍Washington, D.C. In the latest round of partisan warfare, former President Donald Trump’s recent remarks questioning the role of due process in deportation proceedings ignited firestorms across media lines. Left-leaning outlets pounced, painting him as a man ignorant of constitutional principles, while the Right split between defending his border crackdown and critiquing the legal hurdles that obstruct rapid deportations. But beyond the headlines and hysteria lies a deeper issue: what does the Constitution actually say—and how is “due process” being weaponized?

What Due Process Really Means

At its core, due process is the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). It ensures fair procedures—not outcomes. In the context of immigration, courts have interpreted this to mean that even non-citizens are entitled to some legal process before removal. But that doesn’t equate to a guaranteed right to remain.

Due process protects against arbitrary state power. However, it was never designed as a blanket defense for unlawful presence in the United States. The Framers were clear: sovereignty requires borders, and borders require enforceable laws.

The Left’s Legal Delay Tactics

Progressive activists have leveraged the concept of due process to paralyze the nation’s ability to enforce immigration law. Lengthy legal appeals, judicial injunctions, and courtroom gridlocks have become standard fare. In many cases, illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. for years, not because they have a lawful right to stay—but because the legal system, clogged with procedural hurdles, fails to act.

Under this expansive reinterpretation, any attempt to expedite deportations is met with cries of “constitutional crisis.” But these appeals often ignore the fact that crossing the border illegally is already a violation of federal law. While the Left waves the due process banner, they neglect to mention that these individuals broke the law upon entry. Due process was never meant to be an escape hatch for criminal trespass.

Trump’s Remarks in Context

When Trump questioned why some illegal immigrants receive courtroom hearings before deportation, the media portrayed it as an attack on the Constitution. But his real frustration echoed that of many Americans: Why can’t we swiftly remove known criminals and repeat offenders—many with prior deportation orders?

Critics on the Right have also balked at Trump’s language, worried that a tough-on-border stance could morph into authoritarianism. But there’s another view: the President was expressing a constitutional crisis of enforcement, not principle. Laws on the books are being stymied by a bloated system and activist judges, not by a failure to understand due process.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, still on the books, gives the executive branch broad authority to deport nationals from hostile countries during times of conflict. While controversial, it reminds us that even the Founders believed in balancing civil liberties with national security. Trump’s invocation of such authority—however imperfectly stated—echoes that founding logic.

The Real Constitutional Crisis

America’s current crisis isn’t that a former president misunderstands due process. It’s that a growing faction of the political and legal class sees the Constitution not as a governing document, but as a procedural trapdoor to thwart lawful enforcement. The principle of due process has been hijacked—used not to secure justice, but to suspend it indefinitely in favor of open borders.

The Constitution doesn’t require endless legal delays. It demands fairness, not paralysis. Those who broke our laws to enter our nation do not inherit the right to remain simply because bureaucratic red tape works in their favor.

References

• U.S. Constitution: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
• Immigration and Nationality Act
• Alien Enemies Act (1798)
• Supreme Court rulings on due process rights for non-citizens