There’s a tension hiding in plain sight in the current immigration debate, and it’s not about whether immigration law should be enforced. It’s about whether the machinery of law can physically accommodate what’s being promised, and whether the shortcuts required to hit the numbers undermine what we mean when we invoke “rule of law.”

Here’s the core claim, as narrowly as I can state it: mass deportations at the scale and speed currently proposed—millions, quickly—are incompatible with individualized due process unless you radically expand judicial capacity and maintain the safeguards that make process meaningful. The problem isn’t philosophical. It’s mechanical.

The Machinery of DeportationThe Machinery of Deportation

When officials talk about “mass deportations,” they’re talking about huge target numbers. But those numbers have to move through a system with limited judges, limited lawyers, limited court time. That creates pressure for speed, which translates into pressure for shortcuts: expanded use of expedited removal, fast-track detention, and summary processes that bypass hearings entirely.

This isn’t speculation. Congress’ own explainer is blunt: expedited removal can mean being ordered removed without further hearing. That’s not “due process with training wheels”. it's the absence of process.

The Current System’s CapacityThe Current System’s Capacity

Now layer in the actual state of the immigration court system. As of the end of September 2024, the backlog stood at 3.4 million+ pending cases, with more than 2.29 million people awaiting asylum hearings or decisions (TRAC Immigration Quick Facts).

So when someone says “mass deportations,” the question isn’t rhetorical: with what courts? what hearings? what counsel? what time? The infrastructure doesn’t exist. And when infrastructure doesn’t exist, the gap gets filled with workarounds, administrative workarounds that look like law but function like paperwork.

What “Rule of Law” Actually RequiresWhat “Rule of Law” Actually Requires

Let’s be specific about terms. “Rule of law” in this context means individualized adjudication: the government reviews your specific case, applies law to facts, gives you a chance to present evidence and challenge the state’s claims, and a neutral decision-maker renders a judgment before force is applied. It means judicial warrants where the Constitution requires them. It means error-correction mechanisms before irreversible harm.

A policy that leans heavily on administrative shortcuts, like treating agency-signed forms as the legal equivalent of a judicial warrant, isn’t “rule of law.” It’s rule-by-form. And recent reporting suggests that’s exactly the direction policy is heading: ICE memos discussing entry into homes based on administrative warrants, not judicial ones, signal a shift from court oversight to agency self-authorization.

The Historical EchoThe Historical Echo

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has attempted “mass deportation.” In 1954, Operation Wetback targeted Mexican nationals and U.S. citizens of Mexican descent alike in a dragnet effort that removed over a million people—many without hearings, many wrongly (History.com overview). The operation was fast and large-scale. It was also rife with abuses, wrongful deportations, and constitutional violations. That’s what happens when scale overwhelms safeguards.

The Concession and the BoundaryThe Concession and the Boundary

To be clear: some removals are straightforward. Someone is here unlawfully, declines relief, doesn’t contest removal. Fine, the system can handle that efficiently. But millions isn’t “straightforward.” It’s a dragnet problem. And dragnet problems, historically, produce dragnet harms.

What Would Change My MindWhat Would Change My Mind

I’d revise this argument if I saw a real plan that maintains individualized process at scale. That would mean:

• Massive court expansion: hundreds of new immigration judges, not dozens.
• Counsel access: representation for people facing removal, especially those with colorable claims.
• Transparent standards: clear, published guidelines on who gets expedited removal and who gets a hearing.
• Independent oversight: judicial review that isn’t waivable by agency discretion.

If those elements were present, you could scale enforcement lawfully. But if the plan instead relies on summary removal, administrative warrants, and tolerance for higher error rates in the name of speed, then it’s not “rule of law.” It’s force with a legal aesthetic.

The Real QuestionThe Real Question

So here’s the question for anyone advocating both “mass deportations” and “rule of law”: What’s the lawful throughput limit of the system as it exists, and which safeguards are non-negotiable? Because right now, the math suggests you can have speed, or you can have process, but you can’t have both at the scale being promised. And that’s not a policy preference. That’s arithmetic.