Column: The Costs of Mass Deportation on the U.S. Economy (Chicago, IL) — With the beginning of the Trump presidency taking shape, and Cabinet picks like DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi joining ICE Director Tom Homan in the new administration, the long-promised “mass deportation” campaign is underway.
Increased ICE enforcement actions have led to the arrest of violent criminal offenders across the country – including in Chicago. But these enforcement actions have included migrants who do not have lawful status under the INA, but do not have criminal backgrounds. Most recently, Attorney General Bondi ordered a pause on funding to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, like Chicago and Illinois. The DOJ has also sued to end certain aspects of Illinois law that may conflict with provisions of federal immigration code. See, USA v. Illinois, et. al., 1:25-CV-001285.
The Trump administration has revoked internal enforcement policies that cautioned against conducting raids in places like churches or schools. As recently as February 06, 2025, a former DACA recipient who teaches in Miami-Dade County was arrested by ICE officials. See, Miami-Dade teacher with DACA faces deportation after being detained by ICE. NBC6, Miami, February 06, 2025. The location and reason for the arrest were not published in NBC6’s reporting, as that information was not immediately known.
Public figures, private action groups, and even some labor unions are using the few advocacy tools they have to push back on mass deportation. Mariann Edgar Budde, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, directed a church sermon at Trump specifically, pleading, “in the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives.”
“And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors,” Bishop Budde continued. Data from advocacy groups support her contentions.
The American Immigration Council argues, “the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation aimed at both those populations—an estimated total of is at least $315 billion. We wish to emphasize that this figure is a highly conservative estimate. It does not take into account the long-term costs of a sustained mass deportation operation or the incalculable additional costs necessary to acquire the institutional capacity to remove over 13 million people in a short period of time—incalculable because there is simply no reality in which such a singular operation is possible. For one thing, there would be no way to accomplish this mission without mass detention as an interim step. To put the scale of detaining over 13 million undocumented immigrants into context, the entire U.S. prison and jail population in 2022, comprising every person held in local, county, state, and federal prisons and jails, was 1.9 million people.”
AIC continues that, “even assuming that 20 percent of the undocumented population would “self-deport” under a yearslong mass-deportation regime, we estimate the ultimate cost of such a longer operation would average out to $88 billion annually, for a total cost of $967.9 billion over the course of more than a decade. This is a much higher sum than the one-time estimate, given the long-term costs of establishing and maintaining detention facilities and temporary camps to eventually be able to detain one million people at a time—costs that could not be modeled in a short-term analysis. This would require the United States to build and maintain 24 times more ICE detention capacity than currently exists. The government would also be required to establish and maintain over 1,000 new immigration courtrooms to process people at such a rate.” See, Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy. American Immigration Council, October 02, 2024.
But supporters of mass deportation, like White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, argue that American dependence on sub-minimum wage earners is tantamount to modern slavery and a gross human rights exploitation. Mass deportation supporters also argue the cost of not enforcing immigration law unfairly burdens taxpayers.
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies, testified before Congress on January 11, 2024, arguing 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use one or more major welfare programs, compared to 39 percent of households headed by the U.S.-born. Director Camarota also pointed to CIS’ studies that he argued show 4 million children of illegal immigrants in public schools created $68.1 billion in costs in 2019, and 5.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the country in 2019, likely totaling $7 billion annually. These studies do not include analysis of federal funding that “sanctuary” jurisdictions may lose in future budgets, a reality taking shape since Attorney General Bondi assumed office.
The law is clear enough on the surface. Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is tasked with setting up a system of Naturalization. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act – and the many bills along the way that have amended the INA like IRCA, (1986) IIRIRA, (1996) REAL ID Act (2005) and most recently the Laken Riley Act (2025) – the Executive branch is given broad latitude and authority to carry out immigration enforcement prerogatives. Under Article II, the Executive is also obligated to faithfully execute the laws, after swearing to do so, much in the same manner Illinois attorneys take an oath to uphold the Constitution. See, 705 ILCS 205/4.
Simply put, the Executive branch can accomplish much of what it wants to accomplish under existing law, and there is very little chance a Republican controlled Congress or a conservative Supreme Court will buck the White House in immigration enforcement actions. Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, federal prerogatives in matters of immigration are the pre-eminent law of the land and cannot be contravened by state or municipal law. See, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). See, also, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988).
Where does this leave advocates who work with and in immigrant communities? The reality is that immigration law is in dire need of serious reformation. A modern, comprehensive legislative framework that addresses unlawful entries, mixed-status families, expedited removals for violent criminal offenders, status for DACA holders, and many other topics is long overdue. Interested lawyers can help start this process by advocating to Congress and proposing model legislation.
What’s lost in the debate over the numbers is the question about how our immigration policy should reflect our best ideals as a nation, as described in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. What’s also lost is the face of those who bear the harshest burdens and realities of enforcements: the families split apart, the loved ones sent away, the children who lose school mates. The human element is often the element that is most overlooked in our historically recurring debate about immigration to America. This was crystalized for me when I recently read a school child’s note to a classmate. It was colored, had pictures of trees and a hill, and said, “I hope you don’t get taken away. You are my best friend”.
Does family separation based on “unlawful presence” alone really happen in a nation where “all are created equal” and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? At least one organization, the American Bar Association, thinks not. “Now is the time to channel our energy into a renewed commitment for change. Every effort we make, no matter how small, contributes to the larger goal of creating a fairer and more just immigration system. Pro bono advocacy is the backbone of our fight for justice. By offering our skills and expertise, we provide essential support to those who might otherwise be left without an avenue for legal status. This work not only changes lives but also strengthens our communities and upholds the principles of due process and justice.” See, Call To Action: Protecting Immigrants through Legal Advocacy and Education. Jacobson, Michelle COI Chair, November 14, 2024.
Early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. During those remarks, he stated, “when I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed”. Perhaps the current administration’s move to harshly enforce existing Immigration Law will lead to the reform that advocates have called for over the course of decades.
That reform will take a united effort, but it is achievable through committed and tireless non-violent advocacy and education. As Ms. Jacobson writes, “education is also a powerful tool in our advocacy arsenal. By educating ourselves and others about the complexities and realities of our immigration system, we can foster greater understanding and empathy. Hosting webinars, creating informative content, and engaging in community outreach are all ways we can spread awareness about how immigrants drive our economy forward.” Id.
Mr. Heiderscheidt the Chair of the Chicago Bar Association Immigration Law Committee. He owns Heiderscheidt Law Group, LLC, d/b/a “Subscription Lawyer” on the northside of Chicago, a law firm focused on serving immigrant clients in affirmative benefit applications and removal defense. He also represents immigrants and citizen clients in criminal and civil law matters.
Column: The Costs of Mass Deportation on the U.S. Economy
