President-elect Donald Trump’s planned drive to deport tens of millions of illegal aliens signals a profound shift in the US approach to immigration, raising difficult questions about legality, feasibility, and morality. Mr Trump’s pledge to enforce mass deportations as a corner stone of his return to office is designed to appeal to a significant portion of the electorate. However, the sweeping nature of the plan, which would possibly mobilise military and government resources to target millions of undocumented immigrants, reveals complexities that go beyond political rhetoric.

At the heart of the issue lies Mr Trump’s reliance on an obscure and controversial law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This statute, originally meant for wartime use, grants the government power to deport or detain foreign nationals considered “enemies” in times of conflict. Invoking such a law to justify mass deportations risks setting a dangerous precedent, especially if it allows for rapid deportation without due process. This raises serious civil rights concerns that will almost certainly lead to legal battles. The deportation plan also poses logistical challenges. Deporting millions of people would require a massive expasion of resources, from additional immigration officers and detention facilities to judges and transportation.

According to experts, executing such a programme could cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade. It’s not just the financial costs that should be concerning, but also the potential for these operations to destabilise communities and impact families. The experiences from Mr Trump’s first term suggest that mass deportations lead to painful separations and create a pervasive fear within immigrant communities, with children and families often left behind and communities fragmented. There is also the question of cooperation from state and local governments. Many “sanctuary” jurisdictions have pushed back against federal immigration enforcement in recent years, prioritising local community stability and trust over participation in federal deportation efforts.

Mr Trump’s plan appears aimed at bypassing such resistance by leveraging federal funds, deploying the National Guard in cooperative states, and potentially pressuring reluctant states into compliance. This would likely spark intense debate over states’ rights and the role of federal authority in immigration matters. In reality, a majority of Americans appear to support a balanced approach to immigration reform. Polls indicate that while some believe deportation is necessary, more favour a pathway to legal status. If mass deportations are undertaken without careful consideration, the country risks deepening divisions and igniting further polarisation on an already contentious issue.

Instead of pursuing drastic enforcement measures, a more constructive path would involve bipartisan reform that addresses border security while offering legal pathways for undocumented immigrants who contribute to the US economy. Effective immigration reform could reduce undocumented immigration over time while respecting the rights of individuals who have already built lives in the country. The choice of mass deportation will strain resources and invite legal challenges. Immigration is a complex issue that cannot be resolved through force alone.