Is Democracy First Lost at Its Margins?

Around the world, democracies are under pressure, not only from external threats, but from within. The United States, long portrayed as a beacon of democratic values, has in the past decades increasingly weaponized migration policy as a tool of exclusion and authoritarian governance. This evolution has reached new peaks in the past months with the second Trump administration´s call for “mass deportations”. In the name of “national security”, migrants and asylum seekers are dehumanized, framed as enemies, systematically stripped of their rights and some of them deported to high-security prisons in El Salvador. This securitized narrative, rooted in racism, othering, and exceptionalism, not only targets the most vulnerable, but reveals a broader erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law. It is a warning sign: the dismantling of democracy often begins at its margins. The U.S. case is not just about immigration – it is about how democratic norms can be undone, quietly and deliberately, under the guise of protecting the nation against “a foreign invasion”.

Policies targeting migrants are a hallmark of democratic backsliding

The Trump administration’s aggressive implementation of the “bridge” expulsion policy in 2025 exemplifies how targeting vulnerable populations serves as a hallmark of democratic backsliding in the United States. This erosion of democratic principles is starkly illustrated by the administration’s defiance of federal court orders, as seen in April 2025 when officials repeatedly ignored a judge’s demands for information regarding a Maryland resident of Venezuelan citizenship “mistakenly” deported to a prison El Salvador, with the judge condemning the administration’s “bad faith” obstruction of legal processes. The systematic dismantling of due process protections extends beyond individual cases to entire populations, as migrants and asylum seekers are expelled without the opportunity to apply for protection and hundreds of them were forced onto planes to countries like Panama, Costa Rica, and El Salvador with which they have no prior connection. These “bridge” expulsions deliberately circumvent international human rights standards that are binding under U.S. domestic law, replacing established legal procedures with secretive “handshake” diplomatic agreements that prioritize rapid removal over legal obligations. By normalizing the treatment of non-citizens as individuals undeserving of basic rights and procedural protections, this policy approach represents a dangerous precedent where the rule of law is selectively applied, creating zones of exception where government power operates unchecked by judicial oversight or constitutional constraints.

These developments go hand in hand with the rhetoric of “invasion” of non-citizens which has become a central feature of the Trump administration’s approach to migration enforcement, creating an atmosphere of crisis that justifies extraordinary measures. This framing paved the way for invoking the long-dormant Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime measure not used since World War II, to conduct summary deportations of Venezuelan nationals labeled as gang members without meaningful due process or sufficient evidence of their affiliation to such a group or any criminal record. The administration’s determination to use these exceptional powers was evident in May 2025, when despite a clear Supreme Court ruling requiring notice and opportunity to contest deportation, officials attempted a second wave of rapid removals, loading detainees onto buses headed for airports, with plans to send them to El Salvador. This brazen defiance of judicial authority was only halted by an emergency Supreme Court order. Such policies and the disregard for legal procedures demonstrate how the administration has weaponized national emergency powers to create zones where constitutional protections are effectively suspended, all while claiming these extraordinary measures are necessary to protect national security.

Democracy at the Margins: Why This Should Concern Us All

The systematic dismantling of protections for migrants and asylum seekers signals a broader erosion of democratic governance that threatens the foundations of U.S.-American democracy. When the executive branch openly defies court orders regarding deportations to El Salvador, ignores judicial oversight of expulsions to third states, and invokes wartime powers during peacetime, it demonstrates a dangerous willingness to operate outside established constitutional constraints. These actions reveal a pattern where institutional checks and balances, cornerstones of democratic governance, are treated as optional inconveniences rather than essential safeguards. Historically, marginalized populations like migrants have served as testing grounds for authoritarian tendencies that eventually expand to affect broader segments of society. The normalization of secret “handshake” agreements that circumvent legislative oversight, coupled with public dismissal of judicial authority, creates precedents that weaken democratic institutions for everyone, establishing a template for how government power can be exercised without accountability when deemed politically expedient.

The targeting of migrants through policies like the “bridge” expulsions or the disregard for court orders in deportation procedures represents the proverbial canary in the coal mine, an early warning of democratic decay that demands immediate attention. Today’s attacks on due process for non-citizens establish legal and rhetorical frameworks that can be expanded tomorrow to other “undesirable” groups deemed outside the protection of law. This pattern is not new, neither in the U.S. nor elsewhere, however, the current administration is advancing the dismantling of fundamental due process rules at unprecedented speed. These developments require vigilance from ALL of us, civil society organizations, legal advocates, academics and ordinary citizens who recognize that democratic principles are indivisible, they either apply to everyone or risk applying to no one. International scrutiny is equally essential, as externalization policies spread across borders, with the European Union already proposing similar “return hubs” that in some aspects the U.S. approach. Only through transnational solidarity networks that monitor abuses, share information across borders, and challenge the legitimization of human rights violations can we hope to reverse this dangerous trajectory. The defense of migrants’ rights is not merely a moral obligation but a fundamental struggle for the soul of democratic governance itself.