You Can’t Have A Secure Border Without Deportations

In the wake of the Border Patrol shooting of anti-ICE agitator Alex Pretti, Democrats — and many Republicans — are utilizing his death to call for a “de-escalation” or a complete end of deportation operations while pushing, yet again, for so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.” But these politicians and pundits persistently ignore the reality that taking deportations at scale off the table undermines the entire immigration law enforcement framework President Donald Trump has so successfully implemented during his second term.

Prominent among the anti-deportation voices are, of course, Democrats Tim Walz and Jacob Frey (and their anti-ICE insurgency cells), but their numbers also include GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and editors at The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, along with Problem Solvers Caucus leaders Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., and Rep. Tom Souzzi, D-N.Y., and a cacophony of the usual legacy media suspects. WSJ editors warned that Trump’s deportation campaign has become “a moral and political debacle.” The editorial board at the Post directed Trump to “de-escalate,” because “these enforcement tactics won’t turn the tide.” Lawler bemoaned federal agents “conducting forceful operations in American communities.” (Are they just supposed to ask nicely?)

Lawler and the Problem Solvers followed up their anti-deportation admonitions with the same types of ineffectual immigration reform suggestions that proved to be the kryptonite of the obsessively pro-immigration Republicans Trump bludgeoned on his way to the White House. (Byron York of Washington Examiner provided a thorough debunking of these sorts of measures in his daily newsletter.)

As is commonly the case with America’s political and pundit classes, these “experts” overlook or deliberately ignore a basic and obvious reality in their rush to advance their agendas on the backs of the fallout from Minnesota’s anti-ICE obstructionism and sanctuary policies: Deportation is the primary penalty for unlawfully entering the United States, and it’s also the most effective deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers.

Yes, there are other consequences. Prosecutions for first-time illegal entrants are a somewhat rare possibility (with apparently little consequence). Repeat offenders can get away with something like a year in prison if caught, convicted, and sentenced, though repeated illegal crossings typically coincide with other criminal activity like drug smuggling and human trafficking, which leads to longer prison sentences. The vast majority of illegal aliens apprehended at the border — at least under the Trump administration — are simply denied entry or returned to their home country (or another country willing to take them) courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Fines and bans on reentry could come into play, and, of course, the person trying to enter America legally has wasted the money he scraped together to pay cartels to smuggle him in.

But all of that amounts to law enforcement having one hand tied behind its back if an illegal alien sneaking his way into the States and taking up residency in a Democrat-led sanctuary city (or really anywhere, if amnesty advocates have their way) has essentially made himself invulnerable to the enforcement powers of the executive branch. Once you’re in, you’re in — and it’s obvious to all thinking people how that incentive structure will play out. Crises in places like Portland, Oregon, and in California following the defanging of the justice system serve as illustrations of how particular crimes rise when authorities remove deterrents.

Border security measures essentially function as crime prevention, catching the would-be entrant in the act. Deportations are the just punishment for the crime of illegal immigration. Eliminating deportations from the toolbelt of federal law enforcement would be as illogical as a legal system in which authorities stop would-be vandals, thieves, arsonists, and rapists if caught in the act but casually “let bygones be bygones” if they aren’t able to prevent it. (Unsurprisingly, this is actually a position some leftists hold.)

Eliminating deportations, or, as is more likely, stripping them down to a mere performative husk of efficacy, would mean the nullification of immigration law — regardless of the fervor with which federal authorities apply other methods. Deportations work. While canny consumers of legacy media content will rightly dismiss much of the “huddling at home for fear of ICE” messaging as propaganda, there are nuggets of truth to be inferred: Illegal immigrants desperately want to avoid deportations. Democrats desperately want to prevent them. In fact, deportations change the entire calculus of unlawfully entering the United States and helping oneself to the government-funded gravy train of “resources.” They make breaking U.S. law legitimately risky.

The aforementioned cartel smuggling fees are a paramount example of this risk. For its services, cartels often demand upward of $10,000. As noted earlier, the risk of losing that sum in a failed attempt at illegal entry comes into play at the border. But deportations mean the entire amount is continually in danger — even after the illegal immigrant has settled into a sanctuary city for weeks, months, or years. The number of individuals willing to sink what amounts to a life’s savings into smuggling fees drops drastically when deportations could make the “investment” all worthless in a moment.

Yes, all the other things Trump has done have made a massive difference. Declaring a national emergency at the border. Deploying the military to the southern border. Transforming the CBP One app from an engine of mass parole into a self-deportation tool. Partnering with more than 1,000 different state and local law enforcement groups. Hiring 12,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Expanding expedited removals. And generally denying would-be illegal immigrants entry at the southern border instead of simply releasing nearly all of them into the United States, as Biden did.

These measures have achieved astonishing success in conjunction with mass deportations. The numbers illustrated in the charts above manifest in quiet border towns that are ghost-like after the stampede of the Biden years. A shelter in Texas is now focused on care for the locals: Having “not seen a single migrant in months,” “the staff and volunteers … have pivoted to help residents of McAllen, one of the poorest cities in America, with a population of about 150,000.” Trump has sparked a “reverse flow” of migration, as the United Nations reports a 97 percent drop in “northward migration.”

But these border measures are incomplete in and of themselves and will be vulnerable to erosion if the Trump administration reneges on its commitment to mass deportations, which simply means effective deportations at scale in a country where the illegal immigrant population is in the tens of millions.

Abandoning deportations would be a capitulation to Democrat demands when doing so has the potential to do massive damage to the rule of law across the country. The Biden administration chose to open wide the country’s borders, ushering in 10 million or more illegal immigrants. Sanctuary city leaders welcomed them and inflamed the crisis by vilifying federal law enforcement agents instead of cooperating with them. (Even The New York Times plainly admits that “in-community” arrests are due to the uncooperative policies of blue cities and states.) Further, Anti-ICE insurgent groups are now so invested in opposing immigration law that Tren de Aragua could be holed up in a Minneapolis drug house with submachine guns and a crate of RPGs, and there would be agitators outside blowing whistles and harassing Border Patrol agents who showed up.

Trump shouldn’t allow Democrats like Walz and Frey — and the on-the-ground insurgents they encourage and support — to dictate terms on such an important national policy issue. The same is true of Republicans who agree with them. Deportations must continue.

Joshua Monnington is an assistant editor at The Federalist. He was previously an editor at Regnery Publishing and is a graduate of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.