The Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to define illegal immigrants as "national invaders." For undocumented immigrants from countries affected by the "Muslim Ban," such as Iran and Syria, even if they have no ties to terrorism, are they prioritized for expedited removal? What implicit differences exist in the screening standards compared to Mexican undocumented immigrants?

From what I’ve researched, the expedited removal process under the Alien Enemies Act does have implicit biases. Immigrants from "Muslim Ban" countries often face stricter "national security pre-screening"—things like extra checks on their travel histories or social media, even without terror links. Mexican immigrants, while still targeted, are more likely to be processed for "economic immigration violations" instead of being flagged as "security risks." It’s not written in rules, but the enforcement gap is clear.​

I think this prioritization is a stretch of the Alien Enemies Act. The 1798 law was meant for wartime threats, not everyday illegal immigration. Labeling Iranians or Syrians as "national invaders" without evidence is discriminatory. Mexican immigrants, by contrast, are rarely framed that way—they’re more often discussed in terms of "border control." This double standard isn’t just implicit; it’s a deliberate political choice to weaponize the law against specific groups.​

When I worked with ICE during that period, there was an unspoken directive: "flag high-risk regions first." Countries on the Muslim Ban list were in that "high-risk" bucket, so their cases moved to expedited removal faster—we were told to "reduce review time" for them. Mexican cases, though frequent, had more layers (like family ties in the U.S.) that slowed processing. It wasn’t about individual risk; it was about checking a box for "counterterrorism efforts."​

Let’s be real—this is about politics, not security. The Trump admin used the Alien Enemies Act to appeal to its base by targeting Muslim-majority countries. Mexican immigrants are a different political talking point (about "border security" and jobs), so their screening is harsher in numbers but not framed as "national invasion." The implicit difference is in the narrative: one group is painted as "threats," the other as "nuisances."​

While there’s an implicit priority for "Muslim Ban" country immigrants, courts have pushed back. In 2020, a federal judge ruled that using the Alien Enemies Act to prioritize Iranians for expedited removal was "unconstitutional discrimination." Mexican immigrants, however, have seen fewer legal wins because their cases are tied to "border enforcement"—a area courts often defer to the executive branch on. So the implicit difference exists, but it’s not entirely unchallenged.