WASHINGTON — White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller sparked controversy Friday after stating that undocumented immigrants in the United States are not entitled to due process protections during removal proceedings.
“There are 15 million illegal aliens,” Miller said in a video that circulated widely online. “If each were given a full trial, deportations would take centuries. They had no due process entering the country, and they are not entitled to it when being removed.”
Miller’s remarks come as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to restrict immigration and challenge birthright citizenship, describing immigration enforcement as a long-term social issue. Earlier this week, Miller called birthright citizenship an “illegal suicidal” policy, arguing that immigration has lasting effects on future generations.
Legal experts dispute Miller’s claims regarding due process. Supreme Court precedent, including Wong Wing v. United States (1896), affirms that constitutional protections, including the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, extend to noncitizens within U.S. territory. While removal proceedings are civil rather than criminal, courts have consistently held that individuals facing deportation are entitled to basic procedural safeguards, including notice and a hearing.
Miller’s estimate of 15 million undocumented immigrants also conflicts with research from the Pew Research Center, which places the figure at roughly 10.5 to 11 million — a number that has remained relatively stable in recent years.
His comments come amid ongoing legal challenges to a Trump executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary residents, an order that has been blocked by lower courts for conflicting with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Immigration advocates argue that statements like Miller’s could undermine protections for vulnerable populations while adding to the politicization of enforcement.
Do you support removing members of congress who are foreign-born? 
WASHINGTON — In a dramatic late-night vote, the Senate has passed the Born in America Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would limit federal office eligibility to natural-born U.S. citizens. The bill, led by Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-LA), marks one of the most controversial reforms in recent political history and immediately sparked constitutional questions from both sides of the aisle.
The measure passed 51–49, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote. Its language bans naturalized citizens — as well as anyone who has ever held dual citizenship — from serving in Congress, the Cabinet, federal agencies, or the federal judiciary.
Kennedy’s Closing ArgumentSenator Kennedy framed the bill as an extension of existing constitutional requirements for the presidency. In his final remarks before the vote, he argued that the nation should require “undivided allegiance” from all federal officeholders. Supporters described the bill as a safeguard; critics called it exclusionary and unprecedented.
Immediate Administrative FalloutAccording to officials on Capitol Hill, the law took effect immediately at midnight, prompting agencies to begin reviewing personnel lists for compliance. Early reports indicated that several lawmakers and appointed officials left the floor during the night session, though the final number remains contested.
The legislation includes a 72-hour compliance window, requiring individuals who fall under the new restrictions to resign or challenge their status through formal legal channels. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on how enforcement procedures will be implemented or how disputes will be resolved.
White House ReactionPresident Donald Trump celebrated the bill’s passage on social media moments before it became law, calling it “one of the biggest wins for American governance.” The post quickly went viral, drawing both praise and criticism from political leaders and legal scholars.
Legal and Constitutional Questions AheadCivil liberties groups and constitutional experts have already signaled forthcoming court challenges, arguing that the bill conflicts with existing constitutional protections and long-standing interpretations of eligibility for public office. They warn that the legislation could trigger a high-stakes legal battle likely to reach the Supreme Court.
Supporters of the act counter that Congress has the authority to set eligibility standards for federal employment and elected office beyond the presidency.
A Deeply Divided National ReactionWhile some Americans see the law as reinforcing national sovereignty, others view it as a dramatic shift away from the nation’s history of welcoming naturalized citizens into full civic participation. Policy analysts expect months of litigation, injunction requests, and heated political debate.
For now, Washington enters a new and uncertain chapter as agencies scramble to interpret and implement the sweeping requirements of the Born in America Act.