Skip to main content

Deportation

Item set

In the U.S., deportation has been used as a tool to enforce a constantly changing federal immigration policy. Over the years, immigrants have utilized habeas corpus petitions to contest their incarceration and potential deportation. In the late nineteenth century, after programs encouraged the immigration of Chinese laborers to the West, increasing racialized anxieties emerged, resulting in a long-standing series of exclusionary policies. Similarly, in the mid-twentieth century, the federal government enacted the Bracero Program, which recruited Mexican laborers on short-term contracts to supplement industry and agriculture, and then in the years that followed, authorized mass deportation efforts including "Operation Wetback." Passed during the Obama administration, the DACA and DAPA ("Dream Act") programs provided protection for undocumented children and families, deferring their deportation. The Trump Era has been marked by immigration bans and widespread, violent deportation efforts and imprisonment of suspected undocumented people in detention centers, where they are subject to lengthy incarceration and unlivable conditions without due process. Trump-era Department of Homeland Security policies have disproportionately targeted Latinx people, regardless of real immigration and citizenship status.

Items

  • Latina/os and Criminal and Immigration Law Enforcement (2025)
    This teaching module discusses the history of criminal and immigration law enforcement of Latina/os in the U.S., featuring a webinar with Kevin R. Johnson, Professor of Law and of Chicana/o Studies at the University of California, Davis.
  • Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    This act made significant changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which aimed to reduce undocumented immigration and enhance border security.
  • Alien Enemies Act (1798)
    This is one of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts, passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress, applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the U.S. The acts were highly controversial and contributed to the Federalist defeat in the election of 1800. After 1802, only the Alien Enemies Act remained in force, and has continued to be invoked during times of war. In 2025, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the exportation of Venezuelan suspected gang members. The Alien Enemies Act gave the president the power to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a hostile nation or government during times of war, invasion, or "predatory incursion."
  • Habeas Corpus Act of 1842
    The Habeas Corpus Act of 1842 acknowledged the right of foreign born individuals to use habeas corpus, giving immigrants the ability to challenge their deportation.
  • Angell Treaty (1880)
    The Angell Treaty of 1880 amended the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 and sought to regulate, limit, and suspend the arrival of Chinese laborers to the United States. Article Three of the treaty established a clause stating that Chinese subjects experiencing violence and mistreatment on U.S. soil should be entitled to protection by the U.S. government.
  • Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
    The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S. with exceptions granted for merchants, students, or diplomats. The passage of this law marked the beginning of the Exclusion Era where race-based immigration restrictions barred Asian people from immigrating to the United States. Further restrictions were placed on Chinese immigration with the Scott Act (1888) which stipulated that Chinese laborers who left the U.S. would be unable to return. Chinese immigrants faced deportation upon arrival.
  • In the Matter of the Application of Yu Gum and Yu Hung for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886)
    The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, two sisters were detained in Seattle for being in the U.S. contrary to the Page Act, which prohibited the immigration of Asian women involved in forced labor or sex work, and effectively banned Chinese women from entering the United States. When the sisters were set to be deported to British Columbia, they petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The outcome of their case is unknown.
  • Burlingame-Seward Treaty (1886)
    In the wake of the Second Opium War (1865-60), United States Secretary of State William Seward and the U.S. Minister to China Anson Burlingame negotiated what became known as the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. The treaty established trade ports for the U.S. in China, opened Chinese consuls in the U.S., and permitted the free immigration and travel of Chinese immigrants to the United States under the "the most-favored nation principle."
  • Scott Act (1888)
    The Scott Act rejected the guarantee of free travel for Chinese people provided by the Angell Treaty of 1880 and stated that Chinese laborers who left the U.S. would not be able to return.
  • Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889)
    This case challenged the Scott Act (1888) which prohibited Chinese laborers from returning to the U.S. if they departed. Chae Chan Ping petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to stop his deportation after he attempted to re-enter the United States a week after the Scott Act went into effect. The Supreme Court upheld Chinese Exclusion and ordered Ping's deportation, stating that the Scott Act was a "constitutional exercise of legislative power," and any existing treaties it conflicted with were voided.
  • Undesirable Aliens Act (1929)
    This act made unlawfully entering the United States a crime for the first time. Immigrants who did not cross the border through an official point of entry where they had to pay a fee and submit to tests could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, facing fines and up to a year's imprisonment. Returning to the U.S. after deportation was made a felony, punishable by $1,000 in fines and up to two years imprisonment. This law applied to all immigrants entering the U.S., but was intended to restrict immigration from Mexico.
  • Wetbacks Force Ship Into Port (1956)
    Operation Wetback is the racially offensive name given to a publicized 1954 summer campaign by the U.S. Border Patrol designed to apprehend and deport Mexican nationals who were in the U.S. illegally. Although it is often reported that over one million people were apprehended under the program, that number is actually from the previous fiscal year. During the fiscal year of which Operation Wetback was a part of, approximately 250,000 deportations were reported. The operation was part of a policy of removal of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans begun during the Great Depression. This newspaper article describes a mutiny that took place aboard a deportation ship of Mexican workers.
  • Mexican "Wetbacks" Wait Deportation in Crowded Camps (1956)
    Operation Wetback is the racially offensive name given to a publicized 1954 summer campaign by the U.S. Border Patrol designed to apprehend and deport Mexican nationals who were in the U.S. illegally. Although it is often reported that over one million people were apprehended under the program, that number is actually from the previous fiscal year. During the fiscal year of which Operation Wetback was a part of, approximately 250,000 deportations were reported. The operation was part of a policy of removal of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans begun during the Great Depression. This newspaper article describes the deplorable conditions of the deportation camps and ships.
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California (2020)
    In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated the Department of Homeland Security's rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. The court found that the rescission decision was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act, as DHS failed to perform the requisite "reasoned analysis" in making its decision.
  • Proclamation 10903 - Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua (2025)
    This proclamation issued by President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apprehend and remove suspected members of Tren de Aragua from within the U.S. The proclamation called for the apprehension, restraint, and removal of Venezuelan citizens who were at least 14 years of age, within the U.S., and who were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
  • Proclamation 10949 - Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (2025)
    This presidential proclamation reinstated the travel ban from Donald Trump's first presidency that banned the entry into the United States of citizens from 12 countries from the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. In January 2026, Proclamation 10998 went into effect, raising the number of countries with a full suspension of entry into the U.S. to 20, including countries from Asia.
  • Noem v. Abrego Garcia (2025)
    In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with a lower court's order for the government to "facilitate and effectuate" the return to the U.S. of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia who had been deported to El Salvador and detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement.
  • Proclamation 10948 - Enhancing National Security By Addressing Risks At Harvard University (2025)
    This presidential proclamation by Donald Trump claimed that because of an increase of criminal activity at Harvard University and a failure of the University to comply with federal directives, international student visas would be revoked. Harvard filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security, arguing that the ban violated the University's rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. A federal judge granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order that would allow international students to enter the country to attend the University. A federal court later found that the proclamation exceeded the scope of presidential authority and infringed upon Harvard's constitutional rights. The Department of Homeland Security appealed the decision.