The Administrative State, Immigration Enforcement, and the Rule of Law: A Critical Analysis of Mass Deportation Policy and Constitutional Governance

The intersection of national sovereignty, executive authority, and the rule of law represents one of the most fraught dimensions of contemporary American jurisprudence. In the current socio-political landscape, a fundamental “common sense” consensus exists that a sovereign nation-state possesses the inherent right to secure its borders, regulate the entry of noncitizens, and deport those who have violated the terms of their presence, particularly when such individuals pose a threat to public safety. However, this consensus is predicated on the assumption that the state operates within a framework of established legal standards. The assertion that all government agencies must respect the law is not merely a preference for proceduralism but a prerequisite for democratic legitimacy and national stability. When enforcement mechanisms ignore the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), leverage archaic wartime statutes to bypass judicial review, or engage in the systematic “mashing up” of civil and criminal enforcement, the stability of the American constitutional order is placed at risk.

The current trajectory of immigration enforcement, characterized by the enactment of the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and an aggressive mass deportation initiative, reflects a historic shift in both the scale of operations and the methodology of removal. While executive rhetoric frequently emphasizes the surgical targeting of high-threat criminal elements—the “worst of the worst”—empirical data reveals a diverging reality where individuals with no criminal records constitute the vast majority of those detained. This discrepancy, alongside the emergence of secretive, extraterritorial detention facilities described by observers as “hell on earth,” necessitates a rigorous scholarly examination of the economic, legal, and political ramifications of current deportation strategies. The following analysis argues that the circumvention of American laws in the pursuit of mass deportation is fundamentally against the good of the country, potentially leading to catastrophic economic contraction, the erosion of judicial independence, and a collapse in public trust that could drive approval for such policies into single-digit territory.

The Economic Impact of Mass Removal and Labor Disruption

The implementation of a permanent mass deportation policy carries consequences that extend far beyond immediate demographic shifts. Scholarly analysis of the economic feedback loops associated with the removal of millions of unauthorized immigrants suggests a substantial contraction in aggregate economic variables. Research from the Wharton Budget Model and the Carsey School of Public Policy indicates that the removal of approximately 7.5 million to 11 million unauthorized workers would result in a long-run drop in U.S. GDP ranging from 2.6 percent to as high as 6.2 percent. At 2023 levels, these figures equate to an economic loss of between $711 billion and $1.7 trillion.

Macroeconomic Projections and Fiscal Costs

The damage to the U.S. economy under these scenarios is forecast to be greater than the damage sustained during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, during which the national GDP fell by approximately 4 percent. The contraction is driven primarily by the loss of consumer spending, a reduction in the labor force, and a significant decline in tax revenues. Unauthorized immigrants contribute significantly to the fiscal health of the nation; for instance, in 2022, they contributed $26 billion in Social Security taxes alone—benefits they are ineligible to receive. Mass deportation would exacerbate the existing Social Security funding shortfall by more than 11 percent.

Deportation Scenario	GDP Impact (10-Year)	GDP Impact (Long-Run)	Fiscal Deficit Increase	Estimated Per Capita Output Fall
4-Year Removal Policy	-1.0%	-1.0%	$350 Billion	0.5%
10-Year Permanent Removal	-3.3%	-4.9%	$987 Billion	1.1%
Full Workforce Removal (7.5M+)	-6.2%	N/A	$1.7 Trillion (est. loss)	N/A

Data synthesized from Wharton Budget Model and Carsey School of Public Policy.

The fiscal cost of executing these removals is similarly staggering. Estimates suggest that a sustained mass deportation operation would require nearly $900 billion in additional funding over a decade, far exceeding the $170 billion already allocated in the 2025 OBBBA. These costs arise from the four stages of the removal process: arresting, detaining, processing, and the physical removal of individuals, with an average cost of approximately $70,236 per deportee. When billions of dollars are diverted from infrastructure and community support to fund detention beds, the “real value” to the American taxpayer is sharply diminished.

Labor Market Dynamics and the Complementarity Trap

The common-sense assumption that removing unauthorized workers leads to an immediate increase in wages for native-born citizens is not supported by empirical evidence. Instead, the relationship is characterized by complexity and the distinction between labor complementarity and substitution. High-skilled workers, who comprise approximately 63 percent of the U.S. workforce, are projected to see their wages fall by 0.5 percent to 2.8 percent because their roles are often complementary to the labor provided by unauthorized immigrants. For example, in the construction and agricultural sectors, the loss of unauthorized labor reduces the demand for native-born managers, logistics coordinators, and supervisors.

For low-skilled authorized workers, wage effects are bifurcated. While a permanent deportation policy might lead to a 5.0 percent wage increase by 2034, these gains are often temporary and offset by broader inflationary pressures. Historical precedents, such as the 1964 removal of agricultural workers, demonstrate that employers often turn to mechanization or simply decrease production rather than hiring native-born workers at higher wages. Consequently, the removal of 500,000 immigrants from the labor market could result in 44,000 fewer jobs for native-born workers due to the collapse of businesses that rely on a diverse labor pool.

The Rule of Law and the Erosion of Agency Accountability

A central tenet of the American legal system is that government agencies must operate within the bounds of the law. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 serves as a “bill of rights” for the modern administrative state, ensuring that “governors shall be governed”. The recent trend toward bypassing these statutory requirements—characterized by “tossing American laws to the trash can”—represents an existential threat to the integrity of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Authorization, Notice, and Procedural Fairness

Scholarly analysis identifies five core dimensions of the rule of law as applied to administrative governance: authorization, notice, justification, coherence, and procedural fairness. The rule of law demands that every government action possess a valid legal source. However, the current administration has been accused of using “unnecessary secrecy and subterfuge” to conduct arrests and implementing policies that prevent adjudication from taking place. For instance, a secret ICE memo reportedly purports to allow warrantless forcible entry into homes, a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment that erodes the professional standards of the agency.

Furthermore, the “Major Questions Doctrine” suggests that agencies cannot make transformative policy changes with massive economic consequences without clear authorization from Congress. A program to deport 11 million people, costing nearly $1 trillion and potentially reducing GDP by 6 percent, undoubtedly falls within this category. When agencies bypass the APA to fast-track construction of facilities like “Alligator Alcatraz” without environmental or public review, they undermine the very legal standards they are sworn to uphold.

The Judiciary as a Constitutional Backstop

The judiciary remains the primary check on executive overreach in the immigration sphere. In the late 19th century, the Supreme Court established in Wong Wing v. United States that while detention during the deportation process is valid, the government cannot subject noncitizens to “infamous punishment” without a judicial trial. This “punishment doctrine” is increasingly relevant as current enforcement actions move beyond civil regulation into what many legal scholars characterize as state-issued punishment.

Recent litigation has focused on the “no-release” policies and the dismissal of pending immigration cases to facilitate rapid arrests—tactics designed to circumvent the standard immigration court system and undercut Fifth Amendment due process. In Make the Road New York v. Huffman, plaintiffs argue that the expansion of expedited removal deprives noncitizens of the right to a fair hearing before they are deprived of their liberty. The judicial mandate to uphold the rule of law requires that these agencies remain accountable to the statutes that created them, rather than operating as a law unto themselves.

Statistical Discrepancies: The Myth of Criminal Targeting

One of the most concerning aspects of the current deportation push is the “shocking” discrepancy between public rhetoric and actual enforcement data. The narrative that agencies are focused on “real value pick-ups”—the targeting of dangerous criminals and gang members—is contradicted by statistics showing a sharp shift toward rounding up those with no criminal records.

The Shift Toward Non-Criminal Targets

Data current as of late 2025 reveals that individuals with no criminal convictions represent 73.6 percent of all those held in ICE detention. This represents a staggering shift in policy. Between September and November 2025, ICE detention numbers increased by 5,373 people; of this net increase, 97 percent (5,209 individuals) had no criminal history. Only 3 percent of those newly detained had any criminal conviction, a figure that includes even minor traffic violations.

ICE Detention Status (Late 2025)	September 21	November 16	Net Increase	Share of Increase
Criminal Conviction	17,007	17,171	164	3.1%
No Criminal Conviction	42,755	47,964	5,209	96.9%
Total Detained	59,762	65,135	5,373	100.0%

Source: TRAC Immigration Detention Statistics.

This data suggests that the “worst of the worst” rhetoric is being used to mask a program of mass confinement. Furthermore, according to court records, only 1.60 percent of new cases in FY 2025 were based on alleged criminal activity apart from illegal entry. The rapid expansion of detention for Latino immigrants with no criminal records, driven by workplace raids and public-space arrests, signals a shift toward a paradigm of social control rather than public safety.

The Human Cost of Misaligned Priorities

The “lack of real value” in these arrests is further evidenced by specific case studies. For instance, Jerce Egbunik Reyes Barrios, a 36-year-old professional soccer player and father of two who fled Venezuela due to political violence, was disappeared to a foreign mega-prison just weeks before his scheduled asylum hearing. Similarly, reports indicate that individuals have been targeted for removal based on “bizarre indicators” such as having a tattoo or wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey, rather than any proven criminal activity. This approach not only wastes precious government resources but also shatters families and undermines the perceived professionalism of the agencies involved.

The Infrastructure of Exceptionalism: Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT

The emergence of “secret” and “shocking” detention facilities, both within the United States and abroad, has drawn comparisons to the most shameful periods of 20th-century history. These facilities, often described as operating with “Nazi-style” isolation and cruelty, represent a radical departure from American norms of civil detention.

Alligator Alcatraz: A Human Rights Disaster

Located in the Florida Everglades inside the Big Cypress National Preserve, the facility nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” was built in secret and opened in July 2025. It holds up to 5,000 detainees in makeshift tents and cages, exposed to extreme heat, mosquitoes, and proximity to lethal wildlife.

Reports from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have detailed “harrowing” and “nauseating” conditions:

• Sanitation: Overflowing toilets with fecal matter seeping into sleeping areas.
• Torture: The use of “the box,” a 2×2 foot cage where individuals are shackled for hours in the elements as punishment.
• Due Process: A “no-release” system where lawyers are turned away by armed National Guard members and detainees have no way to make confidential calls.
• Environment: The facility was fast-tracked without environmental reviews, threatening the habitat of the endangered Florida panther and the sacred lands of the Miccosukee Tribe.

Despite DHS claims that these reports are “hoaxes,” 2025 became the deadliest year for ICE detention on record, with multiple deaths occurring in facilities that lack proper medical infrastructure and oversight.

CECOT: Extraterritorial Disappearances

In March 2025, the U.S. government began an unprecedented policy of transferring noncitizens to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador. Described by released detainees as a “cemetery of the living dead” and “hell on earth,” CECOT is a mega-prison known for extreme isolation and torture.

The administration reportedly used two primary legal mechanisms for these transfers: the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and third-country removals. Those sent to CECOT included long-time residents with U.S. citizen spouses, people in the middle of asylum proceedings, and even individuals whose deportation was specifically prohibited by court orders, such as Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This policy of “disappearing” people to foreign jails without notice to their families or attorneys is a direct assault on the principle of habeas corpus and represents a dangerous expansion of executive power.

Reeling in Executive Power: The Unitary Executive and Constitutional Balance

The expansion of President Trump’s power through the “Unitary Executive Theory” has profound implications for the rule of law. This theory posits that the President has sole authority over the entire executive branch, including the power to fire anyone who does not adhere to his specific policies. Critics argue that this theory unduly limits the ability of Congress to check presidential power and leads to democratic backsliding.

The Weaponization of the Alien Enemies Act

A striking example of executive overreach is the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Historically used only during declared wars or periods of invasion, the AEA allows for the summary removal of noncitizens from “hostile” nations without due process. In 2025, the administration invoked the AEA against Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA).

Legal challenges, such as Trump v. J.G.G., have highlighted that the AEA was never intended to be used during peacetime as a tool for mass deportation. By declaring a “foreign terrorist organization” as a hostile power equivalent to a sovereign nation at war, the executive branch effectively bypasses the entire statutory framework of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This “authoritarian power grab” poses a grave threat to civil rights, as it allows for the removal of individuals based on unfounded suspicions or “bizarre indicators” rather than proven criminal acts.

The Capture of the Referees

The administration has also sought to “capture the referees” by undermining judicial and administrative independence. As of December 2025, over 100 experienced immigration judges have been fired and replaced with individuals perceived as more aligned with the administration’s maximalist goals. By decrying immigration courts as “fake legal processes” and seeking to eliminate funding for legal representation, the executive branch is systematically dismantling the checks and balances necessary for the rule of law.

Political Consequences: The Single-Digit Risk

The assertion that “lies must end or poll numbers could fall below single digit numbers” is supported by recent trends in public opinion. While a “common sense” approach to removing dangerous criminals is widely supported, the harsh tactics of the current administration are increasingly unpopular.

Declining Public Support

In early 2025, mass deportation programs enjoyed a degree of support. However, by mid-2025, a majority of Americans expressed disapproval of the administration’s handling of immigration and deportations.

Polling Agency (July 2025)	Disapproval Rating	Specific Point of Opposition
Gallup	62%	78% support citizenship for undocumented residents
CNN	58%	59% oppose detaining non-criminals who have lived in the U.S. for years
CBS / YouGov	56%	51% disapprove of the “Trump administration’s program”
Quinnipiac	55%	64% prefer legal status over mass deportation

Source: Compiled national polling data from June/July 2025.

This data reveals a “single-digit” vulnerability: among Democrats and younger Americans, support for ICE raids in public spaces like churches or schools is often in the single digits. Furthermore, 67 percent of Americans oppose separating undocumented parents from their children, up from 61 percent in April 2025. As the human cost of mass deportation—including the potential separation of five million families—becomes more visible, the political space for these policies is rapidly shrinking.

The Threat to Agency Integrity

The perception of ICE agents as “goons” is a direct result of the shift from professional enforcement to a militarized, high-quota model. For the integrity of the agencies to be preserved, there must be a return to professional standards. This requires ending the practice of “unnecessary secrecy and subterfuge” and ensuring that all agents are proud of their jobs because they are upholding the law, not bypassing it. The 1000 percent increase in assaults against ICE officers is a tragic consequence of the breakdown in trust between the agency and the communities it serves—a breakdown fueled by the perception of lawless enforcement.

Professionalism and the Future of Enforcement

The “common sense” agreement of deportation is that the law must be enforced to protect the sovereignty and safety of the nation. However, this enforcement cannot be used as an excuse to toss the Constitution and the statutory framework of the administrative state into the “trash can.” “Real value” pick-ups—those focusing on individuals who pose actual threats to the country—must begin now and not later.

Element of Enforcement	Political Maximalism (Current)	Professional Adherence (Proposed)
Primary Target	All unauthorized noncitizens	Dangerous criminals and security threats
Legal Framework	Alien Enemies Act, Executive Fiat	INA, APA, Fifth Amendment Due Process
Detention Model	Secret “NAZI-style” facilities	Civil, transparent detention centers
Agency Identity	Militarized “Goons,” high quotas	Professional law enforcement, ethical standards
Economic Outlook	-4.9% GDP, massive deficits	Stable labor supply, fiscal responsibility

Synthesis of reform perspectives and economic projections.

Conclusions

The evidence presented in this analysis demonstrates that the current mass deportation agenda is fundamentally misaligned with both American law and the long-term good of the country. The shift from targeted enforcement of criminal elements to a paradigm of mass confinement targeting non-criminals has led to a 2,450 percent increase in the detention of individuals with no prior record—a policy that is statistically proven but rhetorically obscured. This strategy has not only resulted in economic projections of catastrophic GDP contraction and fiscal deficits nearing $1 trillion but has also sparked a constitutional crisis regarding the limits of executive power.

The existence of facilities like “Alligator Alcatraz” and the extraterritorial disappearance of individuals to CECOT represent a “shocking” and “nauseating” departure from the rule of law. These actions, characterized by the bypass of the Administrative Procedure Act and the weaponization of archaic wartime statutes, undermine the democratic legitimacy of the United States. If agencies are to maintain their integrity and if political leaders are to avoid the collapse of public trust, they must reel in the unchecked expansion of executive power and return to a system where all agencies respect the law as it is written. The “lies must end,” and the focus must return to “real value pick-ups” that prioritize public safety without sacrificing the constitutional principles that define the nation. The integrity of the American experiment depends on the understanding that the law is not an obstacle to be avoided, but the essential foundation of a just and stable society.