Will Mass Deportation Take Place?

Eduardo A. Gamarra

As Donald Trump gears up for a potential second term, a key promise that looms large is his pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the United States. Estimates from Trump and his advisors, like former ICE Director Thomas Homan and senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, suggest anywhere from 2 to 25 million people could be deported. This ambitious promise, however, raises more questions than it answers. Just how feasible is such a mass deportation initiative? Despite significant popular support for this measure, including from up to 40% of Hispanics, according to FIU's Latino Poll, the practical and legal challenges of executing such a plan are immense.

Identifying the “Most Dangerous” and Practical Realities of Deportation

While Trump's rhetoric often focuses on removing “dangerous criminals,” the most expedient route to achieve deportation numbers would likely target those who are already detained. In prisons and immigration detention centers across the country, there exists a readily identifiable population of undocumented individuals with criminal convictions. This approach may seem the simplest, but even these individuals have significant legal recourse. Regardless of the severity of their crimes, they are entitled to appeals, representation, and other due process protections under U.S. law. These rights uphold constitutional principles and create inevitable delays in deportation proceedings.

The question then becomes more complicated when considering undocumented immigrants who are not currently in detention but who are presumed guilty by their immigration status alone. This is a much larger and harder-to-locate group, often integrated into communities, workplaces, and schools. Targeting this broader population based solely on undocumented status would risk turning a broad swath of society into targets, including people with no criminal history whatsoever. It also raises a pressing ethical and legal dilemma: does mere lack of legal status warrant categorization as "dangerous," or is that an assumption that would unjustly stigmatize millions?

In addition to the ethical concerns, rounding up individuals without criminal records would require extensive resources, a significant expansion of law enforcement personnel, and coordination with local agencies—many of which may resist cooperation due to their sanctuary policies or public opposition to such measures.

Due Process and the Judicial System

Due process remains a cornerstone of the American legal system. Any deportation orders, especially those conducted on such a large scale, would require a substantial overhaul of current procedures to avoid clogging the already overburdened immigration courts. The appeals process is lengthy, with cases often taking years to resolve, and cannot be bypassed simply by executive decree. Judges, lawyers, and legal representatives would be inundated with cases, and immigration courts would struggle to keep up without massive new investments. As Trump’s team might hope, streamlining the process would require legislative changes unlikely to gain the bipartisan support needed in a divided Congress.

Resistance from Pro-Immigrant Organizations

The immigrant advocacy community has been quick to mobilize against policies it views as draconian. From organizing protests to pursuing strategic litigation, these groups will undoubtedly challenge any mass deportation plan in court. Legal strategies could include filing injunctions to delay deportation orders, defending individuals in deportation hearings, and challenging executive orders that appear to bypass established laws. Nonprofits, law schools, and immigration attorneys are already preparing for such challenges, which would likely draw out the process and reduce the speed and scale of any deportation efforts.

The Question of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Parole

For those currently holding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or parole status, a sweeping deportation policy raises difficult questions. These individuals, who include Venezuelans, Haitians, Ukrainians, and others, were granted protection due to dangerous conditions in their home countries. Stripping these protections could put vulnerable individuals at risk and strain diplomatic relations with the nations involved, as some countries will not welcome a large influx of returning citizens or have the capacity to receive them. Additionally, there could be significant public backlash and moral opposition to removing protections from groups who sought refuge from political turmoil, natural disasters, or violence.

The Human and Logistical Challenges

Deporting millions of people is no small feat. The financial and human resources required to execute this task are staggering. The cost of hiring additional ICE agents, securing detention facilities, arranging transportation, and ensuring compliance with legal standards would add up quickly. Furthermore, the impact on families—many of whom have members who are U.S. citizens—would be profound, raising ethical and logistical questions about family separations and the potential trauma inflicted on children and communities.

The Complex Path to Deportation

Mass deportation, though it might appeal to a significant portion of the electorate, is far from a straightforward solution. Even with the support of dedicated enforcers like Homan and Miller, Trump’s proposal would run headfirst into legal, logistical, diplomatic, and ethical obstacles that would slow its implementation. Due process cannot be circumvented, resistance from advocacy groups will be fierce, and TPS and parole holders add a layer of complexity that would take years, not months, to address. The FIU Latino Poll indicates substantial support for these measures among some Hispanic communities, but the practicalities of responding to popular demand are far more challenging than winning an election.