Trump is creating new universes of people to deport
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
The full scope of the Trump administration's mass deportation plan – which has been evident in theory – is only just starting to come together in practice, and its scale has come as a surprise to many Americans.
This week, the Supreme Court blessed, for now, the administration's effort to deport people from countries such as Cuba and Venezuela to places other than their homeland, including nations halfway around the world in Africa.
In Florida, construction began on a migrant detention center intended to be a sort of Alcatraz in the Everglades.
And CNN reported exclusively that the administration will soon make a large universe of people who had been working legally after seeking asylum eligible for deportation.
I went to the author of that report, CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, and asked her to explain what we know and what we're learning about how the different stories are coming together.
One thing that stuck out to me is how the totality of the administration's actions is turning people who had been working legally in the US into undocumented immigrants now facing deportation.
Our conversation, edited for length, is below:
WOLF: You have this exclusive report about a large universe of new people the Trump administration might be trying to deport. What did you find out?
ALVAREZ: The plans that the administration has been working on are targeting people who came into the US unlawfully and then applied for asylum while in the country.
The plan here is to dismiss those asylum claims, which could affect potentially hundreds of thousands of people and then make them immediately deportable.
It also puts the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency responsible for managing federal immigration benefits, at the center of the president's deportation campaign, because not only are they the ones that manage these benefits, but they have also been delegated the authority by the Department of Homeland Security to place these individuals in fast-track deportation proceedings and to take actions to enforce immigration laws.
This is a shift that is prompting a lot of concern. As one advocate with the ACLU put it – and I'll just quote her – 'They're turning the agency that we think of as providing immigration benefits as an enforcement arm for ICE.'
WOLF: This is certainly not the criminal population that President Donald Trump and border czar Tom Homan said during the campaign that they would target first for deportation, right?
ALVAREZ: You're right to say that coming into this administration, Trump officials repeatedly said their plans were to target people with criminal records.
That is a hard thing to do. It requires a lot of legwork, and their numbers in terms of arrests were relatively low compared to where they wanted to be.
The White House wants to meet at least 3,000 arrests a day, and you just cannot do that if you are only going after people with criminal records.
Now we've seen that aperture widen to include anyone who's in the United States illegally.
The administration's perspective on this is that these are individuals who crossed the border unlawfully, therefore they are eligible for deportation.
But there has been consternation even among the president's allies about who exactly they're going after.
In fact, there was recently a letter from Republican lawmakers to the administration asking for a breakdown of who they were arresting.
WOLF: It's hard to keep track of the different buckets of people the Trump administration has targeted, like those with temporary protected status (TPS) versus asylum-seekers. How should we distinguish between them?
ALVAREZ: Temporary protected status only applies to people who are currently residing in the US. It's a form of humanitarian relief. The United States acknowledges that the conditions in your country are not ones that they could send you back to.
The Trump administration has started to peel that back and said that the conditions are sufficient, therefore we can send you back.
There's certainly a debate for many of these countries as to whether or not that is true, but that has been a long criticism of temporary protected status. What is supposed to be temporary for some countries has been extended so many times that it is no longer temporary.
Parole is another existing legal authority. The United States has frosty relations, for example, with Cuba and Venezuela, and it's very hard to deport people to those countries because they might not accept repatriation flights.
The Biden administration argued that creating a parole program would give people the opportunity to legally migrate to the United States without coming to the US-Mexico border. Hundreds of thousands of people took advantage of that opportunity, and it was very specific to certain nationalities, particularly Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.
There are two more buckets I'll mention: Refugees are people who seek protection in the United States from abroad. Asylum-seekers are those who do it from the United States.
All those buckets have been targeted under the Trump administration, and there have been moves to strip those protections from the people who have them.
A lot of this is still working its way through litigation. But the effect is that people who perhaps had protection in the United States – could work here legally, could live here, even if temporarily – don't have them anymore and are now eligible for deportation.
WOLF: So the Trump administration essentially created a large new population of undocumented people who were previously here with some sort of blessing from the government?
ALVAREZ: Yes. I've been talking to experts in industries that depend on migrant workers and there have been situations where someone had hired a migrant worker who had a work permit to legally work here while their applications are being adjudicated, while they went through their immigration proceedings, and they don't have that anymore. Those protections and benefits have been stripped.
That person who was hired legally is now suddenly undocumented. That can create an issue for industries that depend on the migrant workforce.
Someone mentioned that to me as an example earlier this week, as we were talking through how it can affect agriculture, construction and manufacturing.
We don't have a good sense of the numbers yet, but all indications are that by stripping protections consistently through various ways, the number of people who are undocumented in the United States is growing.
WOLF: The other thing that happened this week is the Supreme Court allowed, for now, the Trump administration to carry on with deporting people from countries that we've just discussed – Cubans or Venezuelans – to third-party countries such as South Sudan. What do we know about those people?
ALVAREZ: The people you're talking about are a group of migrants who were being sent to South Sudan. They're in Djibouti because of litigation, and they are now being interviewed to see if they have grounds for what we call 'reasonable fear.'
But just to broaden out from that group, this decision from the Supreme Court was a very big deal.
Being able to send people to a country that is not their own, but that is willing to take others – that's a huge deal for the administration to ramp up how many people that they are deporting at any one time.
There is the question of due process, which has sort of been a theme in this administration.
How much time do you have to provide notice to an individual that they are not going to be deported to their home country – they're going to be deported elsewhere?
How much time, if any, do you give for them to contest their removal to that specific country?
The overarching point here is that this decision gives the administration so much more runway to execute on their deportation plan.
WOLF: The thing that was interesting this week is the so-called Alligator Alcatraz and these efforts to create new detention facilities. How would those be used?
ALVAREZ: Let me actually tie these two points together, from your previous question to now. What we are seeing currently is the Trump administration trying to solve for existing hurdles in the immigration system for arresting and deporting people in large numbers.
ICE only has a limited number of detention beds. They're only funded for an average of 41,500 beds, but they work with local jails. They have community partners to detain people. Currently, there are more than 58,000 people in ICE custody. They are completely over capacity.
That means that they have to look for new ways to detain people, and 'Alligator Alcatraz' is an example of that, which is essentially building a facility very quickly to hold up to 5,000 people and using some FEMA funds so that the state can erect this facility.
It's called 'Alligator Alcatraz' because it is located in the Everglades, Florida. The idea is that it would be low-cost because they don't have to worry much about security, given that the surroundings are marshes and swamps full of alligators and pythons. So essentially, if one were to escape, they wouldn't make it very far.
It is perhaps a clue or the beginning of how we might see the administration strike more agreements with consenting states or with private companies or military bases to house detainees.
The White House imposed a goal of arresting 3,000 people a day. Well, there comes the next question of where do you put them, especially if you've maxed out ICE detention beds.
Now we're holding more than 58,000 people and deportations can't keep up. And so there comes the Supreme Court decision of allowing the administration to deport people to other countries.
You can start to see how the puzzle pieces are slowly coming together for the administration as they try to execute on this lofty campaign promise.
WOLF: You used two interesting words there – clues and puzzle pieces. Do you feel like we have a grasp of everything that the Trump administration is doing right now on the immigration and deportation front?
ALVAREZ: They've had four years to think about this. Stephen Miller (who is White House deputy chief of staff) knows the immigration system, there's no question about that, and is the architect when it comes to many of these policies.
I would say that over the last six months the administration has been quietly doing a lot behind the scenes that the average person was probably not paying attention to. It may have come in the form of regulations, or it may have come in the form of policy guidance, or diplomatic talks that are happening with countries to eventually take other nationalities. What's been interesting about this particular moment is that everything that they were quietly working on is starting to come to light.
The X factor is: Do they get the billions and billions of dollars from the massive package that's working its way through Congress? Because if they do that, it will be a game-changer for them, and it will eliminate so many resource issues, and we could really see this plan take off.
Hashtags

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


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
SCOTUS delivers gut punch to Planned Parenthood
The Big Story In a ruling made along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Medicaid beneficiaries don't have the right to sue to obtain care from a provider of their choice, paving the way for South Carolina to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. © AP The law says 'any individual' insured through Medicaid 'may obtain' care from any qualified and willing provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides. The suit, supported by the Trump administration, was brought by South Carolina. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling Thursday, saying, 'Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.' The ruling has implications for other states, at a time when red states across the country are looking for ways to deprive Planned Parenthood of funding. Nationally, the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning grants from nine Planned Parenthood affiliates. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri already block Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, and the organization has said it expected many other Republican-led states to do the same if the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina. 'Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. 'And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.' Roughly 72 million low-income Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid, according to the most recent enrollment numbers. And more than 1.3 million South Carolinians — or 20 percent of the state — are enrolled in the program, according to the health policy nonprofit KFF. 'As extremists in every branch of our government are targeting Planned Parenthood and attempting to strip millions of Americans of the care their health centers provide, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated green light to anti-abortion politicians,' Reproductive Freedom Caucus co-chairs Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Republicans were dealt a significant blow Thursday when Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised that major pieces of the GOP megabill's Medicaid policy can't pass with a simple majority. Much of the savings in the bill come from Medicaid cuts, and the ruling impacts several of the largest and most controversial ones, including a plan to slash states' use of health care provider taxes as well as several … Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Reproductive rights advocates are reeling from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina in a legal case to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which they fear will give other states the green light to do the same. 'Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crises,' said Paige Johnson, … Vaccine panel backs RFK Jr. in opposing thimerosal, a flu shot preservative The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently remade by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted Thursday in favor of only recommending flu shots that don't contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The ACIP, which provides guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), voted on four draft recommendations, three of which had to do with recommending … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid … Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

29 minutes ago
South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- All money paid to South Carolina lawmakers while they aren't in session has been stopped by the state Supreme Court as the justices sort through a lawsuit from one of their members, alleging legislators improperly gave themselves an $18,000-a-year raise. The raise is what is called 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent and requires no receipts or other documentation. Lawmakers voted, in the budget set to start July 1, to increase it from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members. Republican Sen. Wes Climer sued his colleagues, saying the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their terms. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection. Lawyers for the House and Senate disagree. They said the money isn't a 'per diem' considered part of legislators' salaries, but a reimbursement for expenses, even though there are no reporting requirements. They also said the money isn't an extra cost to taxpayers because it came out of funds already set aside to operate both chambers. The compensation is usually paid monthly, but neither the $1,000 that has been paid for decades nor the $1,500 raise will land in lawmakers' direct deposits in July since the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday to suspend the budget item containing the money until it rules. The justices set out a schedule with a deadline in early September for the final legal filings, meaning lawmakers won't get paid for at least two months. If the justices rule the raise is legal, then lawmakers would get back pay for both the raise and their regular pay. In South Carolina, the Supreme Court justices are elected by the Legislature. Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 annually, paid in a lump sum that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to the state capital in Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May, and outside of the in-district compensation, they don't receive any money when not in session. The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. It is meant to pay for computers or other equipment, travel to events in their districts, or holding town halls. More than 40 of the state's 170 General Assembly members have refused the increase. All are Republicans.


Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Law: DOJ Sues All Maryland Federal Judges
Immigration law expert Lina Baroudi, discusses the Trump administration suing all the federal district judges in Maryland. Bloomberg law reporter Tiana Headley discusses why Republican-appointed judges are not retiring during this second Trump administration. Securities law expert James Park, a professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the SEC reviewing changes in trade monitoring. June Grasso hosts.