There’s a growing sense that the United States is on the brink of a significant shift—a resurgence of adherence to laws long neglected. The idea of enforcing immigration statutes has sent shockwaves through Democratic strongholds and their media allies, exposing an entrenched double standard in the immigration debate.
President-elect Donald Trump’s emphasis on law enforcement, including a robust deportation agenda, is being met with fervent resistance. Yet his position rests on a clear legal foundation: deportation is explicitly authorized by federal statute and has been a key component of immigration policy for decades. What’s remarkable is how enforcing these laws is now cast as radical or immoral by critics, while the systematic erosion of immigration enforcement during President Biden’s tenure is treated as the norm.
Resistance and Alarmism
Leaders in blue states and cities are rallying against Trump’s proposed actions with rhetoric that borders on the hyperbolic. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has pledged to do everything in his power to shield undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston even invoked the tragic imagery of Tiananmen Square, imagining a dramatic standoff between federal immigration authorities and local forces. Though he later walked back the comparison, his willingness to oppose “illegal or immoral” federal actions illustrates the intensity of the opposition.
But what exactly is so immoral about enforcing laws that Congress duly passed? Critics paint Trump’s deportation agenda as dystopian, but it closely resembles pre-Biden enforcement levels. In fiscal year 2014, President Obama’s administration removed or returned over 316,000 illegal immigrants. Under Biden, this number plummeted to a mere 28,000 in fiscal year 2022, as his administration implemented new rules to shield illegal aliens and restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating in large urban areas. Despite a recent uptick in deportations to over 200,000 in fiscal year 2024—likely aimed at bolstering Biden’s re-election prospects—this pales in comparison to the scale of the issue.
A Pragmatic Approach to Enforcement
Even with Trump’s focus on deportation, logistical realities impose limits. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations has just 6,000 officers, making mass deportation of all 8 million illegal immigrants admitted under Biden’s watch unrealistic. Recognizing these constraints, Trump’s border czar choice, Tom Homan, has outlined a prioritization strategy. The focus will be on removing criminal aliens, national security threats, and those who have already been ordered deported but remain in defiance of court orders—some 1.3 million individuals.
Notably, this is consistent with Trump’s approach during his first term, when most deportations targeted individuals with criminal records. Moreover, Trump’s proposal to involve the military in immigration enforcement isn’t unprecedented or as extreme as critics claim. Historically, the military has provided logistical support for border security, a role it would likely reprise.
Public Opinion Favors Enforcement
Amid the political theater and fearmongering, public sentiment appears to side with Trump. A recent CBS News poll found that 57% of Americans support a program to deport all illegal immigrants in the country. This reflects a widespread recognition that the crisis at the border, with record-breaking illegal crossings, is unsustainable and demands action.
The Biden administration’s approach has exacerbated the problem, creating a permissive environment that undermines the rule of law. If Biden could significantly increase deportations without sparking accusations of authoritarianism, why should Trump’s proposed enforcement draw such ire?
The Bigger Picture
The immigration debate reveals a broader struggle over the rule of law. Allowing millions to flout immigration laws is treated as acceptable, even virtuous, while enforcing those same laws is condemned as draconian. Yet, without enforcement, laws lose their meaning, and chaos prevails.
The coming wave of lawfulness represents a necessary corrective to years of neglect. Trump’s critics may rail against his rhetoric, but his policies reflect a pragmatic and legal approach to an undeniable crisis. For most Americans, the prospect of enforcing immigration laws is not a threat but a promise—a return to order that has been missing for far too long.
.jpeg)
