Stephen Miller, one of the most influential advisors to President Donald Trump on immigration issues, has sparked immense controversy by openly defending the mass deportation of immigrants, including those with pending asylum applications.
He has proposed that they do not have the right to a judicial hearing or to an individual review of their cases.
In a video that has gone viral on social media, Miller stated that the U.S. legal system cannot—and should not—provide due process to millions of people who, in his view, should never have entered the country.
“There are 15 million illegal immigrants. If each of them had the trial you’re asking for, it would take us centuries to expel them!”, he stated.
According to the presidential advisor, the lack of a legal process at the time of entry would justify the elimination of any subsequent guarantee.
“There was no due process in bringing them, and they have no due process in expelling them. They should leave my country!”, she added.
The statements provoked an immediate reaction from lawyers, academics, and lawmakers, who warned that Miller's stance is not only politically extreme, but also contradicts basic principles of the Constitution and U.S. immigration law.
Due process does not depend on how one enters the country
Immigration specialists emphasized that the right to due process is not contingent upon the manner in which a person entered the United States.
Federal legislation and multiple court rulings establish that any individual present in U.S. territory has the right to legal proceedings, especially when applying for asylum.
This right includes the ability to present a case, to be heard by a judge, and to receive a reasoned decision.
Although obtaining asylum is difficult and many applicants are ultimately rejected, the law guarantees access to the process.
During a recent debate in Congress, Congressman Goldman was emphatic in stating that deporting individuals with pending asylum applications would constitute a direct violation of the law.
According to the explanation, the state is required to first determine whether a migrant qualifies for international protection.
A collapsed system that feeds the narrative of deportation
Miller’s words come amid a deep crisis in the immigration system.
Immigration courts are currently facing over three million pending cases, resulting in years of delays and an unprecedented backlog.
Of that total, nearly one and a half million correspond to asylum applications that have not yet been resolved.
The shortage of judges and asylum officers has turned the system into a permanent bottleneck, incapable of responding quickly and efficiently.
Critics of Miller's stance point out that this institutional collapse is being used as a political argument to justify the elimination of due process, rather than promoting a structural reform that strengthens the system's capacity.
The blockage of credible fear interviews
One of the main bottlenecks is the "credible fear" interview, a crucial step for an asylum seeker to move forward with their case.
Thousands of migrants wait for months—and in some cases, years—to be interviewed.
Without that initial evaluation, applicants are left in legal limbo, unable to progress or receive a definitive decision.
Experts agree that this paralysis is one of the factors that most contributes to the current chaos in immigration courts.
A speech that goes beyond irregular immigration
Miller's recent statements are part of a broader narrative that is not limited to irregular immigration.
In a recent analysis published by The New York Times, the newspaper noted that Miller has begun to portray migrants – and their descendants – as a structural problem for the United States.
Miller asserts that “seven decades of migration have produced millions of people who receive more than they contribute”, a statement that the aforementioned media outlet deemed to be refuted by numerous studies.
In statements to Fox News, Miller went even further by blaming entire communities for alleged integration failures.
"With many of these migrant groups, it's not just the first generation that struggles to succeed," he said, citing the Somali community as an example.
The New York Times highlighted that this rhetoric accompanies the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, a measure aimed at preventing the children of undocumented immigrants from automatically acquiring U.S. citizenship.
Experts cited by the Times and other research centers have questioned the basis of Miller's arguments.
Studies on migration show that the children of immigrants often achieve higher levels of education than their parents, better incomes, and a gradual integration into American society.
Julia Gelatt, associate director of the immigration policy program at the Immigration Policy Institute, explained that "study after study has shown the upward social mobility of the children of immigrants."
According to several analysts, Miller's speech does not respond to empirical evidence, but rather reflects an ideological vision that views migration as a constant cultural threat.
The recent statements by Stephen Miller regarding pending asylum cases have once again brought to the forefront a key question: How far can the state go in its efforts to control immigration without violating basic constitutional principles?
While the White House defends increasingly aggressive measures, lawyers and human rights advocates insist that due process and the right to asylum are not political concessions, but legal obligations.
Filed under:
