Donald Trump’s promise of “mass deportation” is unworkable
THE Placards at Donald Trump’s rallies put it bluntly: “Mass deportations now!” If elected again, Mr Trump promises the largest expulsion of illegal immigrants in American history. He has praised Operation Wetback, a big deportation programme under President Dwight Eisenhower. Pressed for details, J.D. Vance, Mr Trump’s running-mate, suggested that their administration would start by deporting 1m people and then take it from there. Could they actually do it?
Deportation is the most emotive aspect of immigration enforcement, and not just in America. Right now Germans are focused on the issue too, after a Syrian migrant who was supposed to have been deported stabbed three people to death in Solingen. Immigration laws should be enforced, not only because the rule of law matters, but also because voters will not tolerate a reasonably welcoming immigration system if they think it involves surrendering control of their borders. So there has to be a way of removing people who arrive illegally or overstay their visas.
Yet the practicalities are fraught. People must sometimes be forced onto buses and planes bound for countries they do not want to return to. Before this, they must often be held in detention centres, which resemble prisons. And their countries of origin must be cajoled or bribed into taking them back. For many Trump supporters, the harshness is the point: it deters others from arriving. But it is worth pondering the likely consequences of a crash programme of mass deportation.
Some 11m people live in America illegally, according to the Migration Policy Institute. (Mr Trump implausibly claims there are 15m-20m.) Deporting them all could directly cost the government $150bn, or $14,000 per deportee. And that does not include the costs of depriving American firms of millions of workers and customers. Estimates of the cumulative hit to GDP quickly run into the trillions. Nor does it include the cost to families. Most illicit immigrants have been in the country for more than a decade. Expelling them would mean that 4.5m children who are American citizens by birth would be separated from either a parent or their home.
Optimistic liberals think Mr Trump may be posturing. He never kept his promise to “build the wall”, they observe, and since that slogan no longer shocks, “mass deportation” is a suitably fiery substitute for the campaign trail. But what if he is serious? The first Trump administration did try to raise the pace of deportations, only to be stymied by the courts. In a second term the political appointees running Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be better prepared, and the courts perhaps more pliant.
Still, to deport millions Mr Trump would need the consent of foreign governments to receive them. This can sometimes be gained by quiet diplomacy, as shown by the first full flight of deportees from America to China since 2018, which took place earlier this year to little fanfare. A Trump administration might accomplish something similar with a mixture of bluster and threats, perhaps promising punitive tariffs unless foreign countries take their citizens back. But it might not work.
And to round people up in the first place, Mr Trump’s administration would need the co-operation of local law-enforcement agencies, many of which are under the political control of Democrats. With Joe Biden as president, that co-operation has generally got better. Cities quietly work with ICE to deport people who may threaten public safety. With Mr Trump back in the White House it would surely cease, leaving him to rail impotently about sanctuary cities and states. In some ways this might be ideal for Mr Trump: he could sound tough on immigration without having to own the consequences of his policy.
Even if Mr Trump could not deport millions of people a year, he could probably return to the pace seen under Barack Obama, who once expelled more than 430,000 people in a single year. Over four years that would add up. There seems scant prospect of a more thoughtful immigration policy. That would combine a warm welcome for the hands and brains America’s labour market craves with firm enforcement, prioritising the removal of recent unlawful arrivals and those with criminal records. It would also involve a political deal allowing the millions of hardworking illegal migrants who have been in the country for a decade or more to stay. But a candidate who calls migrants “invaders” is unlikely to forge such a compromise. ■