Rep. Alyssa Slotkin Confronts DHS Secretary Over Deportations of U.S. Citizens and Legal Immigrants

Washington — In a charged moment during a recent congressional hearing, Rep. Alyssa Slotkin (D-MI) directly challenged Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem over the deportation of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Her pointed questions exposed troubling contradictions within the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policies, as well as a dangerous overreach in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.

Slotkin, a former national security official, did not pull punches. She focused on a deeply troubling issue: the deportation of American citizens, including children — some of whom were battling serious illnesses like cancer — as part of the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Her questions, framed not only by legal concerns but by moral implications, sought to unravel what she saw as a pattern of sloppy, politically driven enforcement.

The Deportation Crisis

The heart of the exchange centered on Slotkin’s persistent query: “Have any American citizens been deported during your time in office?” Noem’s response, attempting to distance DHS from the allegations, was that U.S. citizens had not been deported. “We have not deported any U.S. citizens,” she insisted. However, when pressed, the Secretary acknowledged that U.S. citizen children had been deported alongside their parents.

Slotkin did not let Noem off the hook. “Including children with cancer?” she asked, highlighting the disturbing reality that minors, including vulnerable children, had been swept up in the deportation efforts. Noem’s defense — that the deportations were a choice made by the parents — failed to convince Slotkin, who pointed out the difficulty of expecting a child, particularly one who is ill, to make such a life-altering decision.

This exchange crystallized what many have been voicing: the policies put in place by DHS under the Trump administration have gone beyond targeting the “most dangerous illegal immigrants,” as Noem claimed, and have begun to ensnare individuals with legal status, including U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.

Reckless Overreach

At the core of Slotkin’s frustration was the fear that a failure to maintain clear boundaries in enforcement would lead to a breakdown of constitutional protections. “There are families in this country, including mine, who fled governments where you don’t have rights, where you don’t have due process,” Slotkin explained. She highlighted the deep concern within immigrant communities that these policies were creating a chilling effect, fostering fear that anyone without U.S. citizenship could be targeted, regardless of their legal status.

Slotkin’s comments struck a nerve because they were rooted not just in political disagreement but in a fundamental understanding of how democratic governments must operate. “The state does not have the authority to banish its own citizens,” she argued. “This is not just a policy disagreement; this is a breakdown of the basic principles of American governance.”

The Disastrous Consequences of Sloppy Enforcement

The confrontation was not only about the legal status of those targeted but also the competence of DHS’s enforcement efforts. Slotkin underscored that the deportations, especially those of children and legal immigrants, reflected an alarming level of sloppiness. “You have gone far beyond targeting the most dangerous illegal immigrants,” she said. “You are going after American citizens, people with the legal right to be here, lawful immigrants who have done everything right.”

Slotkin pointed to the systematic failures, exposing the lack of accountability and the risks that come with such an unorganized approach. The Secretary’s repeated claims that deportation was the choice of the families involved did little to reassure the public that DHS was operating with respect for legal procedures or human rights. Slotkin highlighted the contradiction between the administration’s claims of strength and the chaotic, reckless manner in which immigration policies were being enforced.

Habeas Corpus and Executive Overreach

In another heated exchange, Slotkin focused on Noem’s comments about habeas corpus, a fundamental constitutional right. “You swore an oath to the Constitution,” Slotkin said, reminding Noem that habeas corpus is not a privilege granted at the president’s discretion but a basic legal protection afforded to all U.S. citizens.

Noem’s confusion about habeas corpus, claiming it was a right granted by the president, demonstrated a troubling misunderstanding of constitutional law. Slotkin used this moment to call attention to the broader threat posed by this mindset: an administration that believes executive authority supersedes constitutional protections. In this environment, every “mistake” could have lasting consequences, potentially setting dangerous precedents.

Cybersecurity Cuts and the Broader Trend of Overreach

Slotkin also pivoted to the Trump administration’s broader track record on national security. She pointed out that the president had recommended cutting $500 million from the DHS budget, including funds for vital cybersecurity programs that aid local and state governments. This, Slotkin argued, was part of a larger pattern of undermining core programs while boasting about strength in areas where the administration had failed to follow through.

“You cannot claim to have the most cyber-secure administration if you are cutting critical programs for states and locals,” Slotkin said. This comment underscored the recurring theme throughout the hearing: a stark contrast between the administration’s rhetoric and its policies, between political theater and the actual work of securing the country.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

This exchange between Rep. Slotkin and Secretary Noem underscored the growing concerns over DHS’s enforcement policies. It wasn’t just about the specific deportations; it was about the broader trend of legal overreach, sloppy enforcement, and the disregard for constitutional protections. As Slotkin pointed out, the damage done by such policies extends far beyond the individuals directly affected. It erodes trust in government institutions, creates fear in vulnerable communities, and threatens the integrity of the American system of law.

What was made clear in this hearing was that the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration had, in the eyes of some lawmakers, crossed a dangerous line. If left unchecked, these practices could set a precedent for executive overreach, undermining the rights of all Americans. In the end, Slotkin’s questions weren’t just about policy; they were about preserving the core values of the American system.