Have there been policies or programs targeting Muslim noncitizens for removal since 2016?

1. Travel bans and “Muslim ban” lineage: policy by nationality, framed as religion

Beginning in 2017 and echoed in subsequent administrations, the U.S. implemented travel restrictions that predominantly affected citizens of Muslim‑majority countries—measures that critics and many legal observers called a “Muslim ban.” The original executive order and its successors barred or limited entry from specific countries and were explicitly linked to lists of countries designated for security vetting, a blueprint that reappeared in later orders; courts and civil‑rights groups treated the policies as discriminatory while the government insisted the lists were based on information‑sharing and security factors rather than religion ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

2. Interior enforcement, detention policies, and removals: a harder line on noncitizens

Beyond entry bans, enforcement priorities shifted toward aggressive interior immigration actions that increased detentions and removals of noncitizens, including those from Muslim‑majority countries; advocates documented expanded arrests, deportation campaigns, and policies like mandatory detention for certain classes of entrants that raise the risk of removal without bond hearings, a change criticized as sweeping and due‑process‑troubling ^{[6] [7] [8]}. Government statements framed these moves as targeting “the worst of the worst” or addressing national security and public safety threats, but civil‑liberties groups argue the net effect disproportionately impacts Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities ^{[9] [10]}.

3. Revivals and revamps: executive orders aimed at “foreign terrorists” and vetting

Administrations have revisited the travel‑ban logic under different legal rationales, directing agencies to identify countries with deficient vetting and to consider suspending admissions under immigration law; legal analysts warned these orders could be used to revoke visas or curtail lawful pathways and predicted constitutional challenges, while proponents argued the measures are necessary for intelligence and information‑sharing gaps ^{[2] [4]}. The pattern is one of iterative executive action rather than a single monolithic program: proclamations, vetting directives, and proclamations combined to create layered restrictions that affected many from Muslim‑majority countries ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Historical context and counterarguments: national security vs. discrimination

The post‑2016 policies overlap with longer post‑9/11 frameworks that gave authorities broad detention and deportation powers and that historically concentrated scrutiny on Muslim, Arab, and South Asian populations; civil‑rights groups point to that lineage in arguing these newer measures are continuity of discriminatory targeting, while government defenders cite statutory authority and court deference to national‑security judgments as justification ^{[11] [12] [4]}. Courts have at times upheld revised ban formulations on narrow grounds even as critics underline the rhetoric and effects that produced the “Muslim ban” label ^{[2] [1]}.

5. What reporting does not show and remaining limits

The available reporting documents travel bans, vetting orders, expanded detention and increased enforcement priorities and ties these to disproportionate effects on Muslim‑majority nationals, but it does not provide a comprehensive, empirical accounting in one place of exact removal numbers by religion or prove intent in every case beyond contested statements and legal findings; where sources do not supply quantification or internal memos proving discriminatory intent, this analysis refrains from asserting facts not found in the cited reporting ^{[7] [10] [12]}.