No sooner had U.S. President Donald Trump entered the White House than he implemented the anti-migration policy he had been advocating throughout his presidential campaign. The 45th President of the United States and his administration have deported thousands of migrants from the United States. This is by far the largest such operation in the country’s history, targeting one million departures every year. This policy has been met with criticism from analysts, who have denounced it as an affront to human dignity.

Migration has always been a significant political concern that governments must address through their policies. President Trump’s approach to the matter is, however, being strongly contested by human rights activists, who condemn it as a violation of human dignity. Professor Adjita AS, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Lomé, has expressed strong disapproval of the treatment of migrants: “Even if you don’t approve of someone, you owe them a minimum of respect and consideration, befitting their status as human beings”, he remarked. He pointed out that “humans are priceless and should never be the target of contempt or any form of debasement.

People rarely choose to leave their countries of origin voluntarily; this is usually a last resort due to a lack of prospects, a situation that is common to many countries,Professor Adjita states. “Aren’t we all migrants?,” Professor Adjita emphasises the universal human experience and calls for universal respect.

Trump was sworn into office on 20 January 2025, and according to Reuters, he has already deported almost 37 000 migrants during his first month in office. The figure continues to rise. These abrupt deportations have drawn significant criticism. One deportee, Mario Montès, a Haitian national, recounted his experience to Euronews: “I was on my way to work when immigration officers stopped me and summoned me to their office. They informed me that due to the new administration, I would be required to undergo the standard administrative procedures,” Mario Montès, a Haitian deportee, told Euronews.

While precise figures for Haitian deportations under Trump are not available, the pressure on this community is increasing. His administration has reduced the duration of the current temporary residence status granted to around 520,000 Haitians, exposing them to imminent deportation. Michèle Turenne, a Canadian lawyer of Haitian origin whose father was a refugee in Canada, expressed her concern, stating, “As the mother and daughter of a refugee, I’m heartbroken over this.” She went on to express her concern about the fate of these ‘vulnerable people’ facing the prospect of return to dire conditions, highlighting the administration’s shift towards governance by decree as a cause for concern.

Some analysts believe that the situation is becoming critical, as long-standing residents who have built their lives in the United States are being deported without the opportunity to defend themselves. ‘This matter deserves careful consideration’, Nagbe Komi Victorien, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Clinique d’Expertise Juridique et Sociale (CEJUS), magistrate and deputy public prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grande Instance (High Court) in Lomé, stressed.

The right to jus soli, or birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, was challenged by an executive order signed by Trump at the beginning of his term in 2025. This measure aimed to restrict access to automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents. However, this initiative was swiftly contested in the courts. The presiding judge issued a decree in favour of observing the law, invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the paramount document over national constitutions and political agendas. The judge stated that the law should prevail and described the president’s decisions as “populist”.In a contentious move, the Spanish language version of the White House website has been deactivated. This decision was perceived as an extension of his policy aimed at restricting Hispanic communities’ access to information.