
Trump's expulsions are jaw-droppingly cruel. But they're part of an American tradition
The recent expulsion of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a protected legal resident who had committed no offense, is only the latest example of the Trump administration's unbounded efforts to detain and rapidly expel any immigrant, undocumented or not, who may come into its grasp.
Although expulsions – often known as deportations – of undocumented men, women and children have been regular features of life under Democratic as well as Republican presidents in recent years, those of the new administration have been jaw-dropping in their cruelty and utter defiance of federal law and judicial due process, in their heralded scale and in the lust with which they have been carried out. And we would be mistaken to believe that immigrants will be the only victims of what is in effect a widening campaign of political expulsion. After all, Trump has just requested a sixfold increase in funding for detention facilities.
Unprecedented as they may appear, the expulsive policies that Trump and his supporters relish, in truth, have a very long and worrisome history in this country. Indeed, they have been integral to political and cultural life since the colonizing settlement of the early 17th century, almost always expressing the will of a self-designated 'community' against those accused of threatening its security and integrity. Puritans had barely established the colony of Massachusetts Bay before they expelled Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams for challenging their religious doctrine and civil authority. Others, of less notoriety, would follow them, not to mention the many women who suffered lethal expulsions owing to witchcraft accusations before the century was out.
The enlightened republicanism of the 18th century offered little respite and, in some cases, further provocations. Thomas Jefferson expressed the belief that slavery could not be abolished unless the freed Black population, whom he regarded as inferior to the white, was expelled to some foreign territory. His perspective, soon sanitized as 'colonization', would be embraced by most white people in the antislavery movement, including Abraham Lincoln, until well into the civil war. During the revolutionary and constitutional periods, those holding objectionable political views could be treated to tar-and-featherings, ridings on the rail and other well-known rituals of humiliation and expulsion.
The early republic and Jacksonian eras, when political democracy appeared to be on the march, were in fact awash with violence-laden expulsions. The targets included Catholics (long associated with 'popery'), Mormons (not seen as Christian), abolitionists (accused of promoting miscegenation) and Masons (reviled for their political secrecy) as well as Native peoples who were subjected to the largest mass expulsion in all of our history, forcibly driven out of their homelands east of the Mississippi River to 'Indian' territory in the west. Both Alexis de Tocqueville and Abraham Lincoln feared at the time that the tyranny of public opinion and the rule of the mob, found north and south, were eating at the vitals of the young United States, and threatened to turn the country into a despotism.
Yet, over time, expulsions became more common and widespread, almost routine methods of resolving problems as communities – however large or small – saw them. For African Americans, expulsions came in the form of segregation, political disfranchisement, red-lining, the destruction of their settlements (think Greenwood, Oklahoma, and Rosewood, Florida), and the brutal treatment of those who attempted to find housing in white neighborhoods. For unwanted and politically radical immigrants, expulsions came in the form of deportations, vigilante violence and federal repression. And for the poor, expulsions have long come in the form of turning-outs, confinements to workhouses, the denial of political rights and housing, and arrests for vagrancy. At all events, expulsions depended on paramilitary enforcement, whether by armed patrols, the Ku Klux Klan, the American Legion, citizens' associations or neighborhood watches.
Mass incarceration is but the awful culmination of an expulsionism that has been at the heart of criminal punishment since the advent of the penitentiary in the early 19th century. Enlightenment-inspired social reformers had begun to insist that convicted offenders be removed from their communities rather than punished in public, apparently to the benefit of all. From the first, however, those incarcerated were disproportionately poor and Black (wherever they were held), and subject to close surveillance and coerced labor, even when slavery and involuntary servitude were under attack. Recall the 'exception clause' of the 13th amendment, which allows for slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishment. Expulsive incarceration was deemed an appropriate solution to growing social disorder and was quickly embraced when racial unrest became of concern to politicians and policymakers, who then roused an easily frightened public with warnings about crime and demands for law and order. The expulsions were political as well as social, disenfranchising felons not only during their time of incarceration but often for years thereafter as they fulfilled parole requirements and attempted to repay debts contracted while they were locked up. The state of Florida now has nearly one million formerly incarcerated people who are still expelled from the arenas of American politics.
Race-based gerrymandering, which denies the Black representation that a state's population would have required, has enabled Republicans in some legislatures to in effect define themselves as a political community, set their own rules, establish rights that members could claim, and expel those who push back. In Tennessee, the general assembly recently expelled two duly elected Black legislators – and nearly expelled an 'unruly' white female legislator – with some of the most explicitly racist language to be heard in public these days, clearly performances for their white Republican supporters. But they were only following politically expulsive traditions begun during the turbulent days of Reconstruction, when Black elected officials were expelled from their seats in legislatures, regularly run off after assuming local office, or murdered if they determined to stay in power.
This long history helps us understand how easy it has been for Donald Trump to attract millions of supporters by offering expulsions – soon, perhaps, of political opponents as well – as a solution to their fears of economic decline, diminishing opportunities, racial replacement and social unrest. As was true in the past, Trump has described 'communities' under siege from internal and external enemies alike, and has encouraged summary punishments for those who have 'invaded', either from within or without. And as was true in the past, these are ethnic and political cleansings that should warn us of the illiberal cast infusing our democracy and of the dangerous road to its possible collapse. First they came for those who could be declared 'illegal' and were accused of 'poisoning the blood of our country'. Then …
It would be difficult to find a precedent for Trump's expulsive policies in their potential reach and ambitions. Yet, frighteningly, in one form or another, they have happened before in America.
Steven Hahn is professor of history at New York University and author, most recently, of Illiberal America: A History

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A week of US protests: how immigration raids in LA escalated to mass outcry
The Trump administration's immigration raids in Los Angeles prompted mostly peaceful protests, which escalated when the president sent in the national guard – and then the US marines. Here is a video timeline of how the crisis has unfolded so far


Sky News
35 minutes ago
- Sky News
Donald Trump urged Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran, but give talks a chance
One word did the heavy lifting in Marco Rubio's statement: unilateral. The US secretary of state was keen to emphasise that strikes on Iran were Israel's decision alone. But that was not enough for Iran's foreign minister, who claimed Israel could not have carried out the attack without support from America. President Donald Trump had urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran. 2:46 The two leaders had what was described as a heated 40-minute exchange by telephone last Monday. Speaking just hours before the attack, Trump said he feared such action would destroy US hopes of agreement with Iran. Time and time again, the US president has insisted that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. But the Americans and Iranians have been engaged in negotiations for months as the US president sought a diplomatic solution. At one point, he even appeared to concede slightly on enrichment. 15:11 But Israel claimed the weaponisation of enriched uranium posed "a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival". Netanyahu values his relationship with Trump, but the timing of this action was on Israel's terms. Washington was informed in advance - the president's national security team watched the strikes in real time in the situation room at the White House. Afterwards, they said their number one priority was the safety of US personnel. America had already restricted the movement of its staff in Israel and begun evacuating non-essential staff from its embassy in Baghdad. Marco Rubio sent a clear warning: "Iran should not target US interests or personnel." They don't want to be dragged into this, but have stated that they will protect Israel, if necessary.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump said US was aware of Israel's plans to attack Iran, WSJ reports
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that he and his team had known about Israel's plans to attack Iran. The Wall Street Journal said that, when asked what kind of a heads-up the United States received before the attack, Trump said in a brief phone interview: "Heads-up? It wasn't a heads-up. It was, we know what's going on." Trump said he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday and planned to speak with him again on Friday. Trump called the operation "a very successful attack, to put it mildly," the Wall Street Journal said.