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.























image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.