Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A kinder and gentler mass deportation

Men in cowboy hats holding signs

Members of the Texas delegation wave "Mass Deportation Now" signs at the Republican National Convention on July 17.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

There is an argument that the single most important issue resulting in Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris is the illegal immigration that the Biden-Harris administration not only tolerated but encouraged. The problem had grown untenable by Trump’s first victory in 2016 and was a key issue then as well.

Yet from the beginning, the Biden-Harris team not just canceled and reversed the tools Trump used to get immigration under control, but invited illegal immigrants to enter, guided them towards requesting asylum, and neglected to deport those judged unqualified for asylum.


The economy and inflation were the other big issues, and the immigration crisis directly connects to these as well. The electorate saw illegal immigration being encouraged and tax dollars being spent to accommodate this and provide benefits to immigrants while voters’ own financial status was suffering. Exit polls suggest that a majority of working-class voters and those without a college degree were for Trump. And a substantial number of these voters concluded that illegal immigrants would soon become their economic competition and drive down wages.

Whether it was 10 million, 15 million or 20 million, a tiny percentage of these immigrants, especially those classified as “got aways” and likely totaling 100,000 or more, are violent criminals, terrorists and/or agents of foreign powers that seek to harm and even destroy America.

An audit report issued by the Department of Homeland Security in August 2024 indicated that 32,000 children had not appeared in court on the appointed date and were at higher risk of being trafficked. There were also almost 300,000 children who had not yet been issued a notice to appear in court and Immigrant and Customs Enforcement did not have the tools to identify where they were.

It is little wonder then that polls before the election showed a significant majority approved of the idea of mass deportation. While many who favor mass deportation may not fully understand how it might roll out and may be in favor of exemptions in many cases, these views of the current illegal immigration problem clearly drove voters.

Trump will obviously re-establish his border and immigration policies and likely strengthen them with executive orders. I believe he will invoke 8 U.S.C. §1182(f), which provides:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Of course, nothing is simple in government and any such invocation will be challenged in the courts. In the end, legislation will be required (and is appropriate) to address ongoing immigration, as well as Trump’s intent to mass deport.

I believe Republicans can and should take the opportunity in 2025 to actually “reform” the immigration process. Unfortunately, they are not likely to include my proposal for a blanket moratorium on new immigrants over the next 10 years. But it seems certain they will provide tools and funding for the deportation of illegal immigrants.

It is also clear that the Trump administration will prioritize known criminals and terror risks. Their second priority will be those whose asylum status was rejected yet were allowed by Biden-Harris to remain in the country. They have also stated the intent to prioritize finding and safeguarding the hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors. But mass deportation using draconian methods will be difficult at best, and the optics may even turn the majority against the concept. What we need is a kinder and gentler mass deportation. After all, we should acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of these folks came here simply to make a better life for themselves and their families. And many of them have a sense that they were essentially invited in.

What does a kinder and gentler deportation look like? I believe it includes an overwhelming amount of self-deportation and reform legislation could encourage this by including the following provisions.

Any new law should provide that those illegally entering the country are permanently disqualified from becoming citizens and forever banned from working in the United States. They would also be permanently ineligible for any government-sponsored benefit program. This may seem cruel to some, but the purpose is to dissuade forever those whose goal is to improve their lives from entering illegally. The only path to accomplish this should be the legal path. This should apply to new illegal immigrants from the date the legislation is approved.

For those who are already here illegally, there should be a method to encourage and even assist them in the self-deportation process and thereby get a pass on the permanent disqualification suggested above. To begin with, they should be given one year to register with DHS including providing their name, address and identifying details in the form of a driver’s license-type photo and a DNA sample. (Note that the DNA results should be available to law enforcement to assist in solving crimes but should otherwise be private and used exclusively for immigration control purposes.) Significant funding would be necessary. Registration must be easy to do and could be set up at locations such as post offices or motor vehicle department sites. Staffing would be temporary because, after one year, the program would end. Any existing immigrants in the country illegally who wanted to protect their future citizenship or working privileges would have two choices. They must either register or self-deport within the year.

Those who registered and do not have asylum cases pending should have a total of two years (including the one-year registration period), to self-deport. Transportation assistance should be provided. For asylum cases, there must be a dramatic if temporary increase in funding to deal with backlogged claims, including government-funded legal advocates (similar to defense attorneys provided to accused criminals who cannot afford legal representation). The goal should be to clear all outstanding asylum cases within three years. And yes, I understand how difficult that could be.

Asylum rules would benefit from reform as well. Among other things, asylum seekers should be encouraged, and perhaps required, to apply while still outside the United States, including at the border as was done with Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” rules.

There are many details between these lines, but a kinder and gentler deportation should be a Trump administration priority, especially in the form of new laws that encourage self-deportation and create disincentives to future illegal immigration.

Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur and political observer.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less