Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less