If Donald Trump makes a return to the White House, he has committed to initiating a “mass deportation” of at least 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the United States. This promise echoes his earlier campaign during his first term, which ultimately faced significant logistical and legal challenges, preventing it from being realized.
This time around, experts believe the situation could be different. A second Trump administration, armed with more experience, may have a better understanding of how to leverage the vast bureaucratic structure to their advantage. César García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University and author of “Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession with Locking Up Immigrants,” highlighted this potential shift in strategy. Additionally, there may be fewer legal hurdles this time. During his first term, Trump appointed hundreds of judges, effectively reshaping the judiciary that had previously hindered or blocked his efforts to intensify immigration enforcement.
According to Mark Morgan, who served as the acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during Trump’s presidency, a significant ramp-up in immigration enforcement is achievable if a second Trump administration adopts a “steroid-infused, whole-of-government approach.”
Morgan stated that the priorities would remain unchanged, focusing on targeting convicted criminals. However, he emphasized that “nobody is off limits.” Should Trump secure a second term, experts suggest that public opinion might be more favorable towards controversial measures that were previously met with resistance, such as separating immigrant parents from their children to prosecute the adults.
A recent USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll revealed that 45% of respondents are in favor of Trump’s mass deportation proposal, while 49% are opposed, leaving 4% undecided. The poll, which surveyed 1,000 likely voters via landline and cellphone from October 14 to 18, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
While Trump has not provided detailed plans for mass deportation,
As per one of the most influential US media review,
USA TODAY of his interviews and speeches, along with insights from former advisers and administrators, suggests several intentions:
1. Utilize emergency and executive authorities to circumvent existing laws, including those that protect immigrants.
2. Activate provisions from the 1700s Alien Enemies Act, which was historically used to detain individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during World War II.
3. Collaborate with local and state police, particularly in Republican districts, to locate and apprehend undocumented immigrants.
4. Involve the U.S. military and National Guard in immigration enforcement efforts.
5. Redirect federal employees and resources to bolster these initiatives.
According to the nonpartisan American Immigration Council, a mass deportation of 1 million people per year could incur costs of approximately $88 billion annually. This would necessitate an unprecedented increase in law enforcement staffing, detention capacity, immigration courtrooms, and flight capacity.
Stephen Miller, a former adviser and key architect of Trump’s previous immigration policies, stated earlier this year on a conservative podcast that if Trump is reelected, “the border is going to be sealed; the military will be deployed; the National Guard will be activated and the illegals are going home.”
Who would trump deport?
Pew Research estimates that there are approximately 11 million immigrants in the United States without authorization, with the vast majority lacking criminal convictions. Their circumstances can differ significantly, ranging from asylum-seekers who crossed the border to individuals who entered on tourist visas and overstayed.
Among this group, about 1.3 million immigrants have already received removal orders but continue to reside in the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
Kathleen Bush-Joseph noted that the challenges in deporting individuals are partly due to a shortage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, limited airplane capacity, and the unwillingness of some countries to accept their nationals back.
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, suggested that those with existing removal orders might be prioritized for deportation, as well as the hundreds of thousands of immigrants currently incarcerated on local or state criminal charges.
Camarota referred to individuals targeted under the Secure Communities program as “the low-hanging fruit,” which connected local law enforcement jurisdictions with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) database during the Obama administration. As of July, ICE reported having over 660,000 noncitizens with criminal histories on its docket.
Among the 11 million undocumented immigrants, more than half are individuals who entered the U.S. legally but overstayed their visas, according to the Center for Migration Studies. Others may have crossed the border illegally years ago, and some may have married U.S. citizens or have U.S. citizen children, potentially making them eligible for legal status in the future.
There are also hundreds of thousands of individuals benefiting from temporary programs that could be eliminated by executive action. “On a practical level,” said García Hernández, the Trump camp appears “intent on expanding the pool of people they target for potential removal from the United States to millions of individuals, including those who have the federal government’s permission to be in the country.” This broadening of focus raises concerns about the implications for those who are legally residing in the U.S. under temporary protections.
According to the National Immigration Forum, more than 860,000 individuals from 16 different countries, including Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela, and Haiti, are currently benefiting from “temporary protected status.” This program can be terminated by the Department of Homeland Security at any time.
In addition, around 530,000 immigrants who arrived as children with their parents, who crossed the border illegally, are protected under a temporary status known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), as reported by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Trump attempted to abolish DACA, which was initiated under the Obama administration, but his efforts were blocked by the Supreme Court at the time, which had a more liberal composition.
According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, an additional 1.6 million asylum-seekers are currently awaiting hearings for their cases. Mario Russell, executive director of the Center for Migration Studies, emphasized that “these are not people who have snuck into the country; they are individuals who have been given permission to have their cases heard.” This highlights the legal processes in place for those seeking asylum, distinguishing them from undocumented immigrants.
One of the primary challenges of mass deportation would be identifying and locating the millions of undocumented immigrants who are not currently on government rosters. Trump has suggested that state and local law enforcement officers could assist federal authorities in this effort. This reliance on local law enforcement could lead to “dragnet operations,” where broad sweeps are conducted to find individuals without legal status, raising concerns about community trust and the potential for racial profiling.
The federal government has the capability to “tap into the greater intelligence community to put together targeting packages,” according to Morgan. This initiative would likely be spearheaded by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center (NTC). Various Homeland Security agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Marshals, could also play a role in this effort.
Morgan noted, “I think you will see NTC be the hub receiving intelligence from different agencies,” emphasizing that state and local law enforcement would be integral to this collaborative approach in identifying and targeting undocumented immigrants. This interconnected strategy could streamline operations but also raise concerns about the implications for civil liberties and community relations.
If such collaboration were to take place, Russell expressed concerns that it could result in “catastrophic civil rights violations” due to reliance on poor evidence, inadequate forensics, and flawed profiling. He warned that these investigations might lead to unwarranted knocks on doors at residents’ homes and raids on workplaces, characterizing them as “essentially dragnet operations.” This raises significant concerns about the potential for widespread fear and mistrust within communities, particularly among immigrant populations.
Immigrants, even those accused of being in the country illegally, possess certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government cannot deport individuals without providing them “due process,” which includes the opportunity to present their case in court and argue why they should be allowed to remain in the country.
Additionally, undocumented immigrants share basic rights with other defendants in criminal proceedings. These rights include the right to legal representation, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. While there are differences in the rights of citizens and non-citizens, essential legal protections still apply to immigrants.
“You can’t just take people off the street, put them in a jail, on an airplane and send them abroad,” emphasized Charles Kuck, an immigration lawyer. While immigrants without authorization do have certain rights, in practice, they may not enjoy the same protections as citizens.
The Supreme Court has determined that immigration court proceedings are civil rather than criminal. As a result, detained immigrants facing deportation only have the right to a lawyer if they can afford one. This distinction can create significant challenges for those unable to secure legal representation, potentially impacting their ability to navigate the complex immigration process effectively.
Migrants who are apprehended within two weeks of entering the country and within 100 miles of the border face the possibility of being deported without a court hearing or legal representation. This process is particularly concerning as it does not allow individuals the opportunity to present their case.
Emergency authorities can waive certain rights, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration invoked a public health law from the 1940s known as Title 42. This allowed both the Trump and Biden administrations to rapidly return migrants to Mexico or their home countries without giving them a chance to claim asylum or argue for their right to stay. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported over 2.7 million migrant expulsions at the Southwest border between 2020 and 2023, highlighting the significant impact of this policy on migrant populations.
Ken Cuccinelli, who served as acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under Trump and is now a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, stated that immigrants with deportation orders possess limited rights. He emphasized, “When it comes to the deportation process, illegal aliens legally do not have the same rights that an American accused of a crime has.” This distinction underscores the differences in legal protections available to undocumented immigrants compared to U.S. citizens, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings.
Trump’s administration proposed a significant expansion of immigration enforcement, which would involve detaining people awaiting deportation on a much larger scale than in the past. To put this into perspective, the operation to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants would require a vast infrastructure for detention.
In 2022, there were approximately 1.2 million prisoners held across all state and federal prisons in the U.S., according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. Immigration detention, however, has historically been conducted on a much smaller scale, with facilities specifically designated for holding individuals awaiting immigration proceedings. This proposed increase in detentions would necessitate more resources, infrastructure, and personnel to manage the influx of detainees, raising concerns about the implications for both the legal system and the treatment of individuals in detention.
Congress currently allocates funding for ICE to detain an average of 34,000 individuals daily. ICE operates over 190 facilities across at least 40 states and U.S. territories for this purpose. Trump has argued that large detention centers would not be necessary for his proposed deportation strategy, as he claimed deportations could occur swiftly.
However, many immigrants have the right to plead their case for remaining in the country, and the immigration court system is already facing a significant backlog of approximately 3.5 million cases. This backlog means that individuals may wait months or even years for a hearing, which complicates the deportation process and highlights concerns about due process for those seeking to contest their deportation. The combination of limited detention capacity and lengthy wait times for hearings raises critical questions about the fairness and efficiency of the immigration system.
Foreign governments must consent to accept deportees, which can complicate the deportation process. Negotiations with these governments can be time-consuming and may sometimes fail; for instance, countries like China and Venezuela have previously refused to take back their citizens.
According to the American Immigration Council, to effectively handle the potential deportation of millions, the U.S. would need to establish approximately 1,000 new immigration courtrooms. Additionally, ICE would have to expand its detention capacity by 24 times to accommodate all individuals awaiting hearings. This highlights the significant logistical and operational challenges that would arise from a large-scale deportation effort, raising concerns about the practicality and implications of such an initiative.
Old law, new application: The Alien Enemies Act
Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to hasten deportations. The Republican Party embraced Trump’s plan in its platform, citing the law to justify removing known or suspected immigrant gang members, drug dealers or cartel members under the premise that their presence amounts to an invasion by a foreign government.
The courts could potentially reject granting the president what might be seen as war-time powers over migration. However, there have been instances where courts have refrained from challenging a presidential administration’s interpretation of what constitutes an “invasion,” often deferring to the president’s judgment in such matters.
Katherine Ebright, a lawyer who studies war powers at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the Alien Enemies Act is predicated on a person’s identity as a foreign citizen rather than their conduct or legal status in the U.S. She explained, “It doesn’t matter as long as you have that birth heritage or citizenship of the so-called foreign belligerent.” This perspective raises important legal and ethical questions about how migration policies intersect with national security and the rights of individuals based on their nationality.
Trump has indicated plans to utilize the military and National Guard as part of his immigration enforcement efforts. While both Democratic and Republican administrations have previously deployed the National Guard to assist with border enforcement, experts suggest that invoking the Insurrection Act would be necessary to authorize the military to engage in rounding up immigrants on a nationwide scale.
Additionally, there is a potential logistical role for the military in the context of immigration detention. According to experts like Morgan, military installations across the country could be repurposed to provide space for detaining immigrants, particularly nonviolent offenders and families. This idea raises significant questions about the use of military resources for domestic law enforcement functions, as well as the implications for the treatment and rights of those detained.
Morgan highlighted that immigrant can be detained in family residential centers, which are equipped with medical care and various amenities, while the removal process is underway. He stated, “We detain them in family residential centers with all the medical care and amenities, as we’re going through the removal process to remove them to their country as a family.” He suggested that the military could play a supportive role in managing such facilities, potentially providing additional resources and infrastructure to ensure the care and welfare of families during this process. This approach underscores the complexities of immigration enforcement and the need to balance enforcement with humanitarian considerations.
Trump has often referenced the deportation efforts initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s as a model for his own immigration policies. This operation, known as “Operation Wetback,” aimed to address illegal immigration primarily from Mexico by deporting large numbers of undocumented immigrants.
During this period, the U.S. government implemented aggressive enforcement measures, which included raids and increased collaboration with local law enforcement. While Eisenhower’s administration sought to reduce illegal immigration, the operation drew criticism for its harsh tactics and the treatment of individuals involved.
By invoking this historical precedent, Trump aimed to underscore a commitment to strict immigration enforcement, though it also raised important discussions about the ethical implications and human impact of such policies.
Eisenhower’s 1954 operation specifically targeted hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and individuals of Mexican descent, relying heavily on state and local law enforcement. This approach resulted in a widespread dragnet that unfortunately led to the wrongful expulsion of U.S. citizens alongside undocumented migrants.
In contrast, no president has overseen more deportations than Barack Obama. At the peak of his administration in 2012, over 407,000 individuals were removed from the U.S. In total, Obama’s eight-year presidency resulted in more than 3.1 million deportations recorded by Syracuse’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. This high number of deportations during his administration has sparked ongoing debates about immigration policy, enforcement practices, and the implications for affected families and communities.
In 2019, Trump’s administration marked its highest year of deportations, removing over 269,000 individuals according to the same TRAC dataset. Throughout his four years in office, ICE recorded nearly 932,000 deportations in total. This data highlights the continued focus on immigration enforcement during Trump’s presidency, as well as the significant number of individuals affected by these policies. The statistics reflect ongoing challenges and debates surrounding immigration reform, enforcement practices, and the broader implications for individuals and families within the U.S.
