By Daniel H. Galindo

As part of this administration’s objective to reduce unlawful immigration, the administration is engaging in tactics designed to instill fear in immigrants while conveying a sense of accomplishment for Trump’s base.  And the media is only fueling the campaign of terror.   

To accomplish its goal, the administration has had to knowingly engage in tactics that are unlawful or has had to adopt untested legal theories it knows will be (and have been) challenged in court.  What many people don’t understand is that the administration sees a court challenge as a freebie as there seems to be no negative repercussion for the government for having an action deemed unconstitutional.  The government achieves its goal of scaring immigrants or making the Trump base feel like things are getting done at the outset (at the time the unlawful or questionable act is undertaken).  By the time the matter reaches a court and a court makes an ultimate decision about its legality the Trump Administration's action, the desired effect has already been accomplished.

Take for example, the Trump administration arrests and detains a student visa holder because the student has allegedly engaged in discrimination against Jewish students on a college campus by protesting against the Israeli war in Palestine.  The news and social media is all over it.  You are all over it.  Everyone sees what is happening: the government is stifling freedom of speech and getting away with it.  People are outraged. People are afraid to continue protesting.

Some weeks or months go by and yet the government action remains on people’s minds and in the zeitgeist. 

But then a court invalidates the detention of the foreign student and orders the government to release the student. 

What now?  Does the news and social media connect the dots as to how the original action was unlawful?  No.  Do you stop and do a mental reset and remind yourself: students are free to protest on campus and arresting visa holders and detaining a student for their political speech is unlawful.  No—you just go on remembering the student that got arrested for protesting against Israel.  And the administration achieves its goal of instilling fear and stifling freedom of expression.

A look at the actual cases circulating in the news and social media provides insights to what is actually going on, who is being targeted, and a prediction for what is to come.

It is important to start from the premise that courts have consistently held that anyone on United States soil is protected by the Constitution’s right to due process, even if they illegally entered the country, though people generally have greater legal protections inside the country than at the border.

Generally speaking, and from a legal perspective:
1) undocumented individuals do not have a right to be present in the United States;
2) visa-holders essentially can enter and remain in the United States at the will of the government;
3) LPRs have been granted the right to permanently live and work in the United States and generally do not have to worry about their status or right to be present changing (more on this in a bit);
4) U.S. citizen generally have an absolute right to enter and remain in the United States.

This "tiered" hierarchy of statuses is reflected in the chart: the level of risk for detention and/or deportation depends on the legal status of the individual, from the undocumented being at highest risk and, of course, U.S. citizens being at lowest risk.

Takeaways from analyzing the chart:
1) Only undocumented individuals have been deported.
2) One visa-holder has been ordered released, two remain in detention pending their release, and three have elected deportation, self-deported, or voluntarily left the country.
3) Of the LPRs, none has had their LPR status revoked or been deported, and all but one have been released after some (considerable) amount of time in detention. 
4) The U.S. citizens, while having faced intimidation and harassment, have not been formally detained at all.
5) 11 of the 18 individuals (61%) were either accused of being gang-affiliated or pro-Palestine, indicating that these two specific qualifiers have a significant relationship to the individual's risk, in addition to the individual's legal status.  

The silver lining: While the Administration's actions in each of these cases is reprehensible, the instances seem to be isolated while at the same time overly represented in the news and social media. (Of course there are surely other cases that haven't garnered media attention, but the focus of this blog is to analyze the impact of the cases that have.)

Furthermore, the Administration appears to be losing in its efforts to invoke unlimited and unchecked powers to detain, revoke status, and/or deport individuals.

As noted in the the fourth column, judges have been ordering visa-holders and LPRs released and/or mandating the Administration put forth its reasons for detaining and/or deporting the individuals.

While the Administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to take these actions, cases challenging the use of the Act have already starting making their way through the courts. On May 1, 2025, a Trump-appointed federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from detaining, transferring or removing Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act—ruling that the administration's invocation of the AEA "exceeds the scope" of the law (click to view the ABC News article).

That was the first judge to make such a ruling. Other judges examining the Alien Enemies Act have only ruled on whether to temporarily enjoin (temporarily prohibit/stop) the Administration's use of the Act. Naturally, the use of the Alien Enemies Act is likely to make its way through the appellate courts and to the Supreme Court.

Returning to the whether visa holders or LPRs should be worried . . . .

Visa holders: As previously mentioned, visa holders are admitted to enter the United States and remain in the United States at the will of the U.S. government. While at least one judge has ordered the release of a visa-holder because the only evidence against her was that she wrote a pro-Palestinian op-ed—that judge did not make a ruling as to whether the government could revoke that individual's student visa. The ruling was merely that the individual should not remain in detention pending a determination of her deportability.

Takeaway: Visa holders should be aware that their visa can be revoked at any time. This was true before the the most recent Trump administration.

LPRs: According to present law, an LPR may be denied entry to the United States if the LPR has been absent from the United States for a continuous period of more than 180 days, has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States, or if the LPR has been convicted of — or admitted to committing — a crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance. (Hence, why Fabian Schmidt, the only LPR not involved in pro-Palestine issues was detained—and eventually released.)

The administration is presently attempting to use the Alien Enemies Act to bypass these limited exception to an LPR's right to enter and remain in the United States, arguing that the Act permits the government to remove an individual because they pose a risk to national security, even if the individual is an LPR.

Takeaway: So far it seems to be only LPRs that are outspoken about Palestine that are at risk for government action.

If you are interested in knowing more about your rights at ports of entry (regardless of your status) visit the ACLU of Northern California website at https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry.

This article was written solely to provide factual information and is not intended to provide legal advice. DHG Legal does not specialize in immigration law but can provide a referral to anyone looking for legal advice or legal services related to their immigration status.

Please get in touch if you need to connect with an immigration attorney.