Related Articles
-Editorial
President-elect Donald Trump’s early cabinet appointments signal that border security and immigration restrictions will be a central focus of his administration. But what does this mean for immigrants and the families of immigrants, their communities? What could “mass deportations” look like? And what is the potential effect of some of his policies on legal immigrants and naturalized citizens?
In this discussion, immigration experts broke down Trump’s immigration priorities and explore the potential consequences for immigrants and the nation as a whole in this panel hosted by Ethnic Media Service.
Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, has raised concerns about the feasibility and consequences of proposed large-scale deportation efforts. Speaking recently, Robbins outlined the logistical, financial, and legal challenges such plans would entail.
“Mass deportation requires finding individuals in communities, and the government simply does not have the capacity for this,” Robbins explained. “We don’t know where many people are, and the cost of implementing such a program is staggering—estimated at $315 billion for full execution or $88 billion annually over a decade.”
Robbins highlighted the current detention system’s limitations, noting it has a capacity of only 50,000 people, far from sufficient to manage millions of cases. “The immigration courts are already overwhelmed, with a backlog exceeding a million cases. It takes approximately five years to process an asylum claim,” he added.
Greg Chen, of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, echoed Robbins’ concerns, emphasizing the economic and social repercussions. “Communities dependent on migrant labor, such as those in Yuma County, Arizona, would face devastation,” he stated. “Many businesses rely heavily on migrant workers, particularly in agriculture, to meet their labor needs.”
Both Robbins and Chen also warned of the fear and uncertainty such policies could instill in immigrant communities. “Even individuals with legal status are becoming concerned about being profiled and targeted,” Chen said. “This fear undermines trust and creates unnecessary panic.”
Robbins concluded by calling for a balanced approach: “Any immigration policy must respect civil rights and consider the economic and humanitarian impacts. A one-size-fits-all enforcement model is neither feasible nor ethical.”
Elizabeth Taufa, Policy Attorney and Strategist at ILRC, highlighted the psychological toll such policies have on immigrant families. “Mass deportation is not just about trucks moving through communities or house raids. It disrupts the emotional and psychological fabric of our neighborhoods,” said Taufa. “We’re talking about children skipping school because their parents fear deportation, shortages of healthcare workers, and even fewer teachers—many of whom are on temporary statuses like DACA.”
Taufa stressed that while the federal government lacks the resources to execute mass deportations at the scale suggested on political platforms, the fear and intimidation tactics have already caused widespread disruption. “It’s the unraveling of the threads of our American communities, especially in rural areas where immigrant labor plays a critical role,” she added.
Panelists also addressed the economic challenges of implementing such policies. Julia Gillard of the Migration Policy Institute noted, “In 2009, the highest year of deportations, there were 238,000 interior removals. To achieve the numbers proposed by some politicians, it would require an unprecedented increase in funding, resources, and personnel.”
Taufa concluded by urging policymakers to consider the broader implications. “This isn’t just an economic issue. It’s about the heart of our communities and the long-term damage to families and local institutions.”
Over recent years, U.S. immigration policy has undergone significant transformations, particularly concerning the treatment of asylum seekers at the southern border. Under the Biden administration, key policies reshaped the asylum process, including the requirement for migrants to secure appointments via a digital app before seeking asylum—a practice that mirrors earlier restrictions like the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy.
This evolving framework has sparked discussions about what might change under future administrations. Experts note that the Biden administration’s measures, while distinct, built upon pre-existing infrastructures, such as physical barriers and asylum restrictions, laid during prior terms. This continuity raises questions about whether future leadership would dismantle these policies or expand upon them.
In the new Trump administration returns, harsher measures may be reintroduced. These could include broader categorizations to deny entry, leveraging Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar groups deemed threats. Concerns persist that such actions might lead to racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.
Meanwhile, the economic implications of stricter immigration policies, particularly mass deportations, remain contentious. Analysts estimate that deporting over 13 million undocumented workers—comprising more than 4% of the U.S. labor force—could result in a GDP loss of up to 6.8%, rivaling the impact of the Great Recession. Conversely, past proposals for comprehensive immigration reform have shown potential for significant economic growth.
