Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why Trump's mass deportation plan is a lost cause

Migrants being detained by U.S. Border Patrol agents

U.S. Border Patrol officers detain migrants camping in the border area of Jacumba, Calif., in June.

Katie McTiernan/Anadolu via Getty Images

Garcia is an assistant professor of sociology at Yale University, specializing in international migration from Latin America. He is a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

Immigration, especially that of undocumented migrants, is a key issue — perhaps the key issue — in the presidential race.

Despite the Biden administration's efforts to strengthen border security, the Trump campaign has taken a more extreme stance. Former President Donald Trump has spent months on the campaign trail pushing for mass deportations, proposing to deport an unprecedented 22 million people. This would severely impact migrant communities and the U.S. economy. Rhetoric aside, however, such an effort is condemned to fail from the start because of — ironically — one deeply rooted American value: family.


I am a researcher who has spent the last decade studying the movement of migrants through Mexico toward the United States. In this time, I have had the opportunity to meet hundreds of Central Americans moving northward toward the U.S. Some of the migrants I met had already lived in the U.S., been deported or chosen to leave, and were headed back again (sometimes for the second, third and fourth times).

These migrants had suffered countless terrible experiences. They’d spent time lost in the Arizona desert, nearly drowned in the Rio Grande, been kidnapped by drug cartels in Mexico, suffered hunger, faced deadly violence and walked thousands of miles. Despite all these dangers lying between them and the United States, they were headed back again (and again) for one primary reason: to get back to the families they had left behind.

For example, in 2015, I interviewed a man from El Salvador. At that time, he had been out of the United States for nearly a year, and had been deported three times from Mexico and once from the U.S. border when trying to enter California. When I asked him why he kept trying to get to the U.S., he explained: “I have a wife and three young daughters waiting for me in the United States.” He had lived in the U.S. for years, but after being stopped for speeding, he was deported to El Salvador. Ever since, he had been attempting to return.

When I asked if he feared the increased border policing, he said, "I'm not afraid. My life is there. I'm like Speedy Gonzales — small, fast and always escaping. No matter how much they try, I'll get away because my family is there." For the many migrants like him, there is no other option but to keep trying.

This strength and resilience of families — their desire to be together, to live their lives —are sufficient to thwart Trump's plans to deport 22 million undocumented migrants because, simply put, deported migrants will find a way to make it back. Of course, a combination of massive deportations at the border and from the interior of the United States would wreak havoc on family structures, the economy, and the nation’s social fabric. Still, families and communities would organize, move resources and mobilize to bring back the people they love, just as they always have.

Yes, for many Americans, immigration is a top concern in this election cycle. And deportation is the easy answer that, on the surface, looks like the obvious solution. But if we want order and control at the border, attacking families simply won’t work. The idea of mass deportation is not new — America has tried it since passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, and studies show it has never worked.

Instead, we must push politicians for more creative solutions that take into account and learn from our previous mistakes. Instead of thinking immigration as an issue of deportation, we have to think about it through the axis of inclusion, and recognition.

While calls for mass deportation are sure to fail, a more balanced approach to dealing with undocumented immigration would offer new pathways to legalization for undocumented immigrants (such as the parents of U.S. citizens) and open additional pathways for circular migration, where migrants could benefit from working in the U.S. for a period without having to permanently relocate to the United States. Such a solution might work.

What will not work is the mass deportation of parents, siblings, spouses, children, friends, neighbors and community members, who are destined to return to the U.S. through pure resilience (and to suffer greatly in doing so). And while Trump’s policies have constantly sought to dehumanize immigrants, in fact, his proposed deportation will fail because family ties and the desire to be with loved ones, despite dangers, are aspects of humanity at its best.


Read More

Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, CA

Colourful vibrant Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, California, USA

Getty Images

Fund the Community DataBank

San Francisco residents need an organization that can follow public money and decisions before the damage is done. I propose a Community DataBank, beginning with Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow, supported by a modest, publicly approved allocation of our taxes. Residents should be able to find out what government is doing without requiring everyone to research City Hall.

My earlier proposal placed two desks outside the Mayor’s Office, staffed by neighborhood association members who would watch who goes in and out and follow the public business behind those visits. The DataBank would give those desks useful work and reliable records. A visitor’s presence would prompt a question; official documents would establish what actually happened.

Keep ReadingShow less
US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

Getty Images

America’s Gridlock Is Beijing’s Best Argument

Americans tend to treat democracy’s superiority as settled, and the long-run evidence backs them up. A major study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that countries that democratize end up about 20 percent richer per person within a generation. But most of the world does not grade governments on long-run studies. For billions of people outside the wealthy West, the test is simpler: does the power stay on, are food prices steady, is there work, and do the roads get built? When the stomach is empty, a ballot can feel like a luxury.

China understands this and sells its model on exactly those terms. Its GDP per capita has climbed from about $300 in 1980 to nearly $15,000 today, by IMF figures, and the World Bank credits it with lifting some 800 million people out of extreme poverty. India, the world’s largest democracy, started from a similar place and sits near $2,800. Beijing’s centralized system, paired with Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, built power plants, factories and rail lines at a pace India’s more deliberative politics has not matched. Anyone who values liberty will find little to admire in that model. It does explain why the model sells.

Keep ReadingShow less
American soldier in headquarter control center

American soldier in headquarter control center

Getty Images

Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria

When American forces conducted airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation signaled a renewal of security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. Yet for Nigerians living in communities plagued by terrorism, kidnapping, and armed attacks, a critical question remained: Will these strikes make their daily lives any safer?

That question demands serious consideration in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing, and tactical training. Yet, armed violence continues to disrupt daily life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the effectiveness of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Hegseth

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on October 28, 2026.

(Photo by Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

Pete Hegseth and the High Price of Compromised Governance

Just days after a historic midterm election in which everyday Americans sent a clear, undeniable demand for political accountability and transparency, the halls of Congress have devolved into a new theater of crisis. Republican Representative Thomas Massie’s introduction of eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has thrown the Department—and the nation’s fragile democratic norms—into uncharted territory.

Massie, a longtime Trump critic who plans to retire from Congress at the end of the year, accuses Hegseth of bypassing Congress and violating constitutional limits on war powers.

Keep ReadingShow less