Trump’s red card to humanity

In recent days, Donald Trump’s decision to deport a group of Iranian residents from the United States has sparked a wave of reactions. This action is not only debatable from a humanistic and ethical perspective but also carries legal, political, and cultural dimensions that can only be fully understood through multi-layered analysis.

The United States presents itself as a defender of human rights and individual freedoms, yet in practice it has one of the most ambiguous and interpretive immigration systems among countries worldwide.

U.S. immigration laws combine the executive powers of the president with administrative interpretations by security agencies, often applied arbitrarily and unpredictably. Those who fall victim to presidential decisions have virtually no legal right to contest the grim fate that those in power in Washington impose on them. Even state-level judicial systems often fail to provide meaningful recourse in such cases.

Trump’s recent decision to deport dozens of Iranians comes at a time when many of them hold legal residency and some even possess refugee status. This action constitutes a clear violation of the U.S.’s international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, which forms the core of the international refugee law framework.

Under the U.S. legal system, the president has the authority to restrict entry or residence of nationals from certain countries “for reasons of national security.” The problem, however, is that the concept of “national security” lacks a precise definition in the U.S., allowing it to serve as a pretext for systematic violations of individual rights. This legal ambiguity has repeatedly facilitated discriminatory actions against specific groups, including Iranians.

From an international law perspective, collective deportation without individual review constitutes a clear violation of human rights and refugee protections. Yet experience shows that the U.S., particularly under Trump, demonstrates little willingness to be accountable to international bodies, placing itself in a position where it acts as both “judge and lawmaker.”

In this equation, what is lost are the rights, desires, and aspirations of individuals who, prior to their legal or illegal migration to the U.S., may not have fully understood the consequences of living in a country with an unbalanced and unpredictable legal system. Once they face the injustices of the U.S. executive and legal system, they are left with no opportunity for even minimal recourse or collective protest against the oppression imposed upon them.