Immigration policy can have serious rights implications for vulnerable individuals and must be addressed sensitively. Yet, the global immigration discourse indicates that the issue is being seen mainly from a law-enforcement perspective, instead of a human rights one.

The Trump administration’s mass deportation drive against illegal immigrants in the US and Pakistan’s Afghan expatriation policy reflect this shifting attitude.

Recently, Los Angeles erupted in protest against the arrests of illegal immigrants by officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE is known for its heavy-handedness.

Raids were conducted in restaurants, warehouses, stores and similar establishments where illegal immigrants were thought to be working. In a militarised response to the protests, the Trump administration deployed the National Guard and the US Marines, exacerbating matters.

The mass deportation drive is the latest in a series of anti-immigration executive orders issued by Donald Trump since his return to the presidency. The orders include the use of the Alien Enemies Act, 1798, to expel suspected gang members, a blanket ban on asylum access and revocation of the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants on parole.

Tightening border control and removing criminals is the sovereign right of every country. But this right is not unqualified. Immigration enforcement must be carried out in a humane manner that does not strip an individual of his or her dignity.

Most critically, due process must be followed. Indiscriminately rounding up and deporting millions of law-abiding immigrants who have only known the US as their home is inhumane; expelling ‘suspected’ gang members without court convictions is inhumane; blocking asylum access for refugees overcoming dangerous journeys to flee political instability, conflict, poverty, gang violence and natural disasters is inhumane; and haphazardly revoking a parole programme, thus separating families, is inhumane. It is particularly unbecoming of a country that claims to be at the forefront of defending civil liberties and human rights.

Pakistan, too, has been cracking down on Afghan refugees since late 2023. At the time, it was estimated that Pakistan was hosting 1.3 million POR card holders (documentation issued by the UNHCR conferring refugee status), 800,000 Afghan Citizen Card (ACC) holders (issued by the government granting temporary residence but not formal refugee status), and 1.3m undocumented Afghan immigrants. The total figure included the 600,000 Afghans who fled to Pakistan after the Afghan Taliban retook Kabul in 2021.

The first phase of the deportation plan, launched in November 2023, targeted the 1.3m undocumented immigrants. By February 2025, it was estimated that 800,000 had voluntarily left the country, fearing forced removal. They included POR and ACC cardholders, as a single household has individuals with varying documentation.

The second phase was launched in March 2025 against the ACC cardholders whose documentation had been cancelled and who were told to leave by end March. For now, no definite plan has been announced against the POR card holders. However, their documentation will expire on June 30 unless extended.

The manner in which the expatriation plan is being implemented shows a heavy-handed approach to the immigrants, two-thirds of whom have never lived in Afghanistan. More troubling, the plan is not driven by national security concerns but by political considerations.

There was an uptick in cross-border attacks and violence by the TTP and its affiliates after the Afghan Tali­ban retook power. Pakistan believes the Afghan Taliban are providing sanctuary to the TTP and demanded action against it. Kabul denies harbouring the terrorists, and the violence continues. In retaliation, Pakistan has carried out military strikes on suspected TTP hideouts, closed the border, and started expelling Afghan refugees.

Both the US and Pakistan cases present a critical lesson: An approach to immigration that prioritises law enforcement and undermines human rights is neither acceptable nor a solution. It was encouraging to see the US Supreme Court stepping in to order the US administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador on suspicions of gang involvement.

In Pakistan, the government cannot hide behind the non-ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol to shun its obligations under international humanitarian laws. The expatriation plan must be suspended until a more humane solution can be found. At the very least, at-risk individuals must be identified and saved from deportation. Due process is non-negotiable. Human rights are inalienable.

Shakeel is a lawyer and serves as a consultant to the International Organisation for Migration and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

-Dawn (Pakistan)/ANN