In today’s immigration landscape, “fast-track fairness” seems less like a commitment to justice and more like a punchline, an ironic slogan for a system where federal officials are micromanaged into enforcing policies that sidestep constitutional protections. While the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments promise due process and equal protection to all people, the current administration’s zero-tolerance approach has redefined equality and due process with all the finesse of a bureaucratic bulldozer. Meanwhile, foreign people facing prolonged detention do not enjoy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, guaranteed to all criminal defendants who are about to lose their freedom, leaving these people to navigate complex legal proceedings alone. Programs like Project Homecoming,[i] marketed as humane and voluntary, rely on the CBP Home Mobile App to nudge people toward self-deportation with a digital smile.

This article unpacks how such policies distort the rule of law, blur the line between enforcement and abuse, and repackage coercion as compassion, all under the banner of “fairness.”

In the third week of June, immigration attorneys from across the country gathered for the annual immigration law conference hosted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) in Denver, Colorado.[ii] This year’s meeting took on a somber and urgent tone, reflecting the immense challenges faced by both practitioners and the communities they serve. The conference highlighted the growing need for professional support, practical legal tools, up-to-date resources, and a sense of solidarity among immigration attorneys navigating an increasingly hostile legal and political landscape.

Among the panelists were former government officials with decades of service across multiple administrations, some dating back to President Clinton. These seasoned professionals shared a rare, candid look into the internal workings of immigration policy under the current administration. They described an environment increasingly marked by micromanagement, harassment, and even coerced departures from public service. In contrast to prior administrations, regardless of political affiliation, there was, they noted, a consistent respect for the rule of law and the expertise of career civil servants. According to their testimony, that respect has been entirely abandoned.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section One, guarantees certain rights to all persons within the United States:

• No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;
• Nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[iii]

The framers of the Constitution purposefully chose the words “all persons,” not “all citizens.” This choice was deliberate, reflecting a belief that basic constitutional protections should extend to anyone within U.S. borders, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.[iv]

Yet the erosion of those constitutional protections has become especially visible in the implementation of the administration’s so-called zero-tolerance immigration policy. Because nothing quite embodies the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment—particularly the part about not depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process—like expedited removals, indefinite detention, and legal processes carried out with little oversight or accountability.

Evidently, to the current administration, “all persons” was a nice phrase for the history books, but not necessarily for immigration enforcement. In current practice, this administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy has frequently led to violations of constitutional rights, especially through the aggressive expansion of expedited removal procedures inside the United States and the empowerment of newly deputized individuals who often lack any formal understanding of the rule of law or constitutional protections.[v]

These changes, issued through internal U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) memorandum, have granted both government officials and deputized agents with broad authority to detain and remove individuals, often without proper oversight, transparency, or due process. When such unchecked discretion is given without accountability, it fosters a dangerous environment in which personal bias, discriminatory practices, and excessive use of force may go unchallenged. Such unchecked authority opens the door to abuse of power, discriminatory enforcement, excessive use of force, and the targeting of vulnerable populations. Without clear legal boundaries and accountability mechanisms, personal bias and systemic injustice can go unchallenged.

The result is a justice system that not only fails to protect individual freedoms but also undermines public trust in democratic institutions, not to mention local law enforcement community relational policing efforts. In a society governed by the rule of law, the power to detain and remove individuals must be exercised with transparency, oversight, and respect for human dignity.

This absence of due process in immigration enforcement stands in sharp contrast to the criminal justice system, where constitutional safeguards like the right to counsel are not just expected, they are guaranteed. In the criminal justice system, individuals facing the loss of liberty are secured the right to legal representation, even if they cannot afford it.

The Sixth Amendment ensures that anyone at risk of incarceration has access to counsel. This principle was firmly established in the landmark 1963 case, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to counsel is fundamental to a fair trial. Clarence Earl Gideon, a poor man convicted in Florida after being denied a lawyer, had his conviction overturned by the Court, which affirmed that legal representation must be provided by the state in criminal prosecutions.[vi]

Public defenders play a crucial role in upholding this constitutional guarantee. They provide skilled legal defense to individuals who cannot afford private counsel, helping to ensure that every person, regardless of income, receives a fair trial. Their work not only safeguards individual rights but also reinforces the integrity of the criminal justice system by holding the government accountable to its burden of proof.

Immigration proceedings, however, operate under an entirely different set of rules. Noncitizens, even when detained for months or years and facing the loss of liberty, are not guaranteed the right to legal representation and have no right to a government-appointed attorney. This disparity creates a two-tiered justice system. While criminal defendants are entitled to legal representation, immigrants, many of whom face life-altering consequences such as indefinite detention, permanent family separation, or deportation to dangerous and sometimes unfamiliar countries, are expected to navigate a complex and opaque legal process alone, if they cannot afford to hire an attorney.

The absence of counsel in an immigration court has devastating consequences. Studies consistently show that immigrants with legal representation are far more likely to be released from detention, succeed in their cases, and avoid deportation. Without counsel, people, including children, asylum seekers, and long-term residents, must defend themselves in unfamiliar legal territory, many times hostile, impatient, rushed, and often in a language they do not understand. This stark inequality undermines the foundational principle that justice should not depend on wealth or privilege. This wears away the basic principle that justice should not depend on wealth or privilege and highlights a glaring inconsistency in how legal rights are applied depending on a person’s status.

The lack of a right to free counsel in immigration proceedings exposes a critical gap in the legal system, where due process is compromised and human rights are too often overlooked and now this administration is exploiting that fact.

Imagine you’re enjoying a trip to Paris, taking in the Eiffel Tower, savoring croissants, soaking up the culture, when the days passed and you accidentally let your visa expire because, well, you were just having too good a time. Then one day, you run at a red light. A French-speaking police officer stops you, but you’ve left your driver’s license back at your place. You try to explain, but your accent gives you away as a foreigner.

Suddenly, what started as a simple traffic stop turns serious: you’re arrested. Without much explanation (and in a language you barely understand), you’re told immigration authorities have been notified and that an immigration hold is now on your record. Instead of being released after a brief detention, you’re shuffled off to a facility in another state with a “mandatory” detention (because you entered in the last two years, and you are a “priority”), waiting, sometimes weeks, for a bus or a plane filled with others in the same predicament to take you back to your home country or another location assigned by the government.

During this entire nightmare, you have no access to a lawyer who speaks your language or can explain your rights. You’re handed a stack of official legal papers, written only in French, that you’re expected to sign.

These documents might even waive your rights or agree to your deportation, but how could you really know? What could be more charming than having a minor traffic slip-up spiral into an international immigration nightmare? Getting arrested for forgetting your license and then treated like a national security risk, that’s story for the ages.

Being forced to navigate a complex legal maze without a lawyer, in your language, facing unknown laws and legal process, not knowing your rights or if you have any, all the while being pressured to sign mysterious documents written in another language could change your life for some time to come, possibly forever.

Today, in the United States, it is just another day in the thrilling country of zero-tolerance enforcement! This is a key reason why multiple countries have issued travel advisories for their citizens traveling the United States.

This administration’s approach to immigration policy has further undermined the rule of law, even within the courtroom itself. One recent example is the rollout of Project Homecoming, a program supported by the CBP Home Mobile App, aimed at encouraging the voluntary departure of individuals unlawfully present in the United States. On May 5, 2025, a new EOIR flyer titled, “Message to Illegal Aliens: A Warning to Self-Deport” appeared in all immigration court communications and was posted in courthouses across the United States.[vii] The message further warned of consequences like daily fines up to $1,000, jail time, and “immediate deportation” by ICE. It promotes the CBP Home mobile app as a “safe” way to self-deport and offers a $1,000 stipend as an incentive.[viii]

The initiative is framed as a streamlined, incentive-based option to leave the country, but it carries serious and often misunderstood legal consequences. While branded as “voluntary,” participation in Project Homecoming may result in long-term bars to reentry, typically three or ten years, depending on the length of unlawful presence. Additionally, individuals who choose this route may unknowingly waive important legal rights, including the ability to apply for relief from removal or to challenge their deportation in immigration court. The data submitted through the app can also be used for future enforcement actions, raising significant concerns about privacy, informed consent, and due process.

Moreover, Project Homecoming is presented by the government as a cost-saving and administratively efficient alternative to formal removal proceedings, it may, in practice, exert undue pressure on noncitizens to accept voluntary deportation. This is particularly concerning when individuals lack access to legal counsel or the financial means to hire an attorney who could help them understand their rights and the long-term legal and personal consequences of such decisions. Without adequate representation or a clear grasp of their options, many may feel coerced into compliance, even when they may have viable defenses to removal or eligibility for relief under immigration law.

In a system already characterized by profound disparities in access to justice, the expansion of programs like Project Homecoming risks further marginalizing vulnerable populations, particularly those with limited resources, language barriers, or histories of trauma. Rather than promoting fairness or efficiency, these practices may instead erode the foundational principles of due process and equal protection. By bypassing traditional court proceedings, minimizing oversight, and accountability such initiatives mark a troubling shift in immigration enforcement, one that increasingly distances itself from constitutional safeguards and the rule of law.

So here we are, celebrating a system that punishes the powerless, sidesteps the Constitution, and calls it progress. Who needs due process when we have buzzwords like “zero tolerance,” “national security risks,” “invasion” and “border security”? Why bother with fairness when efficiency and security make such great headlines? In this brave new world of immigration enforcement, justice isn’t blind, it’s just missing. Lady justice has disappeared. If we keep applauding this erosion of rights as policy success, we shouldn’t be surprised when the same broken system comes for the rest of us. After all, when you trade the rule of law for convenience, no one stays safe for long.

And yet, despite being the frequent targets of this increasingly punitive system, foreign individuals or immigrants continue to contribute immensely to the fabric of American life. They pay billions in taxes, help sustain Social Security and Medicare (even though many undocumented immigrants can never legally claim those benefits) and start businesses at higher rates than native-born citizens, creating jobs and driving innovation. They are essential workers in healthcare, agriculture, construction, technology, and in our legal system, filling critical labor shortages and keeping our economy running.

Beyond economics, immigrants enrich our culture through language, food, art, and tradition, making our communities more vibrant and diverse. They serve in the military, engage in civic life, and lead in their neighborhoods. Immigrants embody resilience and determination, often overcoming enormous barriers just for the chance to contribute. In a country facing an aging population and shrinking workforce, immigrants are helping to secure our future. Simply put, they are not just part of America’s past and present, but they are vital to its future. And as much as this administration may try to portray them as a threat, immigrants are, in fact, our strength. It’s time our policies and our rhetoric reflected that truth.

Mariella Diaz is an attorney at Ramirez Smith Law & chair at the Idaho AILA. She specializes in family-based immigration and removal defense. She began her legal studies at Concordia University School of Law and earned her J.D. from the University of Idaho College of Law in 2018. She is dual citizen of the United States and Peru. She is loud and proud of her Peruvian heritage. She has represented several families in court before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”), the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, as well as representing clients in their interviews before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). In her spare time, she enjoys time with her husband and daughter, gives back pro bono work to the community, travels, runs, hikes, mountain bikes, camps, paddles, meditates and more.

[i] CBP Home Mobile Application | U.S. Customs and Border Protection, https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbphome (last visited Aug. 3, 2025).

[ii] 2025 AILA Annual Conference and Webcast on Immigration Law, https://www.aila.org/shop/products/view/annual-conference (last visited Aug. 3, 2025).

[iii] U.S. Consti. Amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added).

[iv] Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

[v] A. B. C. News, ICE Recruitment Efforts Upset Some Local Law Enforcement Leaders, ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-recruitment-efforts-upset-local-law-enforcement-leaders/story?id=124259508 (last visited Aug. 3, 2025).

[vi] Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

[vii] DOJ Circulates Notices in EOIR Immigration Courts Urging Self-Deportation, IMMIGRATION POLICY TRACKING PROJECT, https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/doj-circulates-notices-urging-self-deportation-in-immigration-courts/ (last visited Aug. 3, 2025).

[viii] Id.