The Fort Bliss army base in Texas, situated on the US-Mexico border, is set to possibly serve as a deportation hub based on proposals from the Trump administration. Critics argue that this move could become a focal point in the ongoing immigration debate.

The base, currently used by Donald Trump to fly deportees to Guantánamo Bay and Central and South America, may also be considered for large-scale detention in addition to expulsion purposes. Opposition to the plan includes concerns over the impact on the armed forces and criticism of the treatment of migrants akin to “reality TV”.

Democrat Veronica Escobar, a Texas congresswoman, warned that using military installations as detention centers would undermine military readiness and effectiveness.

The proposal from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggests using military installations to detain undocumented migrants. Fort Bliss could initially hold up to 1,000 detainees during a 60-day “evaluation period”, with plans to expand to accommodate an additional 9,000 migrants:

Escobar asserts that there is no emergency necessitating the extreme measure of using a military base for such purposes. She also claims that it would divert the focus of Fort Bliss from national defense to immigration enforcement, setting back core military responsibilities by two years.

Fort Bliss, the second-largest military base in the US with a population of almost 50,000, has previously served as an immigration hub for people entering the US, but never for those being deported. It is located near El Paso, TX, bordering the Rio Grande and the US-Mexico border.

While the DHS has yet to respond to requests for comment from Fort Bliss and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), others have voiced legal and human rights concerns regarding the proposal. The involvement of the military raises fears about access to rights, information, and oversight for migrants in detention.

Rights advocates also assert that civil immigration enforcement should remain within the purview of departments like DHS and not be mixed with the military. The debate over the Trump administration’s plan continues amid growing implications for immigration policy and national security.