Illusion of Choice: US' Self Deportation Policy is Political Policing in Guise

As surveillance, automation, immigration enforcement converge, who gets to stay is no longer just a legal question.

The recent call to self deport in the US underscores larger shifts in immigration policies. 

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

A few days ago, it was reported that an Indian doctoral student in the US faced revocation of her student visa and deportation, citing her alleged involvement in activities supporting Hamas. Similar reports came of a university professor being deported to Lebanon despite having a valid US work visa, even after a judgement by a court blocking her immediate removal.

On 18 March 2025, in a 90-second video, US President Donald Trump in an address urged ‘unauthorised immigrants’ to “leave now using the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Home app or be removed under tough enforcement.” He emphasised that using this app to self-deport could offer a safer option and the potential to return legally in the future. In contrast, those who are forcibly removed may lose that opportunity and face permanent bans.

This is part of a broader $200 million campaign warning undocumented aliens to ‘self-deport’ and stay out.

The US State Department has now also been using artificial intelligence (AI) to scan social media accounts and revoke visas of international students who are suspected of supporting Hamas (or what is popularly known as the “Catch and Revoke” plan). However, critics warn that AI could misinterpret political speech, putting free expression and privacy at risk.

Immigrant Control or Political Surveillance?

What is interesting about these policies is not just the emphasis on deportation but also how technology and securitisation mechanisms are expanding the very definition of who is deportable.

This also marks a significant departure from traditional immigration enforcement to pre-emptive digital surveillance, thereby blurring the distinction between immigration control and political policing, reminding us of Didier Bigo’s “Panopticon” theory.

According to him, security is less about responding to threats and more about reifying control through surveillance. Modern states do not merely enforce exclusion through visible border controls or pushback tactics but also deploy bureaucratic and legal frameworks, along with advanced profiling technologies, to systematically render certain groups perpetually vulnerable. 

There are four interwoven issues that demand a closer look. 

International Students Same as Undocumented Migrants?

Firstly, this raises an important question: should international students who hold legal visas be subjected to the same deportation tactics as used in cases of undocumented migrants? International law recognises that even those without legal status, like refugees or asylum seekers, are entitled to protection.

Important here is Article 33, or the principle of non-refoulement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Convention 1951, which prohibits forced deportation. Having its etymological roots in the word ‘dēportātiō’, meaning ‘carrying away’ or ‘banishment’, the term ‘deportation’ has long been associated with state actions to expel individuals from a country.

The term ‘self-deportation’ reframes forced removal as voluntary exit, though under coercion—driven by the looming threat of legal action or expulsion.

This is not merely a debate about differential entitlements to protection but rather an illustration of how, with this conflation of international students and legal visa holders with undocumented and ‘illegal’ migrants, the logic of precariousness is being extended. It reflects what Nicholas De Genova terms the "deportability" of all non-citizens, wherein there is a persistent threat of being deported that disciplines the lives and conditions of migrants. 

Secondly, while the CBP app is a new tool, it operates within the framework of existing US immigration laws, primarily the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), with enforcement provisions influenced by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.

Under IIRIRA, individuals residing unlawfully in the US can opt for voluntary departure, allowing them to leave without an official removal order. Those who overstay are subjected to re-entry bans.

Voluntary departure doesn’t exempt individuals from these re-entry bars. Kristi Noem, US Homeland Security Secretary, framed the CBP Home app as an ‘opportunity’ for undocumented migrants to “preserve” their legal return options, with failure to depart leading to permanent removal.

This speaks of a broader evolution of immigration policy in the US, where exclusion is increasingly being framed as a matter of choice rather than enforcement.

Who Will Bear the Brunt?

The third and perhaps most pressing concern is identifying who will bear the brunt of these policies. As of the 2023-24 academic year, there are currently 1,126,690 international students in the US, marking a 7 percent increase from the previous year.

Among them, over 300,000 are Indian students—surpassing China for the first time since 2009—reflecting a 23 percent rise from the previous year.

Yet, despite their growing presence, international students are increasingly caught within shifting immigration policies that blur the lines between academic mobility and immigration control. In the US, international students navigate the constraints of F-1 and J-1 visas, which govern their ability to study, research, and work under tightly regulated conditions.

While F-1 holders can engage in limited employment, broader policy shifts—predating Trump—have steadily tightened restrictions. In October 2024, new regulations reinforced the longstanding five-month absence rule, making it harder for students pursuing research or internships abroad to maintain their visa status.

Additionally, employment restrictions for F-1 visa holders remain stringent. While students can engage in limited on-campus work and structured off-campus programs like Optional Practical Training and Curricular Practical Training, recent policy shifts have curtailed their flexibility. Given the rising cost of living, many students rely on part-time jobs to support their education. However, recent developments have made this even more difficult and complex, further entrenching their financial precarity.

Geopolitical Fallout

Fourthly, apart from structural precarity, it also carries significant foreign policy ramifications.

The US-India relationship is deeply affected by skilled migration, as Indians accounted for 75 percent of all H-1B visas granted in 2023.

Any tightening of work authorisation policies could severely impact Indian professionals, particularly in STEM fields where OPT is critical for post-graduation employment.

Similarly, Chinese students and scholars are also facing intensified scrutiny. In recent years, Chinese students have been subjected to visa revocations over espionage concerns, and AI-driven surveillance tools may now accelerate these exclusions.

Recently, India has readily agreed to repatriate thousands of its citizens residing unlawfully in the US. In 2024 alone, the US deported 1,529 Indian nationals, a staggering 400 percent increase from 2021.

This surge in deportations also coincides with a rising number of Indians being apprehended at US borders. While India is not included in the US' proposed travel ban list, immigration attorneys are advising H-1B visa holders, F-1 international students, and even green card holders to avoid unnecessary international travel amidst increased scrutiny at US consulates and airports, delays in visa processing, and recent changes to visa interview waiver rules, which have reduced the eligibility period from 48 months to 12 months. The US is also cooperating with China on the deportation of Chinese nationals residing illegally in the US.

To conclude, states are constantly innovating exclusion. The US is not alone in turning deportation into a tool of bureaucratic coercion.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union has similarly refined self-deportation tactics. Cases like Denmark’s “jail or leave” policy or Sweden’s financial incentives for voluntary return exemplify this, though they have been applied mainly in the context of asylum seekers.

So, we have not yet recovered from the externalisation policies of recent years, where asylum seekers were outsourced to third countries, only to witness new forms of internal expulsion.

The situations are different, but the logic remains the same: to make sure populations are perpetually deportable, whether through AI-driven surveillance, visa revocations, or the normalisation of ‘self-deportation’ under coercion. With a convergence of surveillance, automation and immigration enforcement, who gets to stay is no longer just a legal question. It is now a question of who gets to be seen as belonging at all. 

(Pulkit Buttan is a PhD Scholar at the School of Development Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)