Can the US Military Really Catch 15 Million People? (Spoiler Alert: Probably Not)
Trump's election has fueled fears of mass deportations, with the potential for military involvement. The plan targets undocumented workers, particularly those in construction, agriculture, and domestic service.
The specter of mass deportations looms large over the United States. As President Donald Trump’s campaign promises evolve into policy proposals, his rhetoric on immigration—once a rallying cry for his base—now faces the complexities of implementation. Raúl Guillermo Benítez Manaut, a researcher at the Center for Research on North America at UNAM, warns that while such plans might fulfill political pledges, they risk triggering economic, social, and diplomatic upheaval on an unprecedented scale.
Benítez Manaut points out that the logistical hurdles of mass deportation are immense. Local and state law enforcement resources, especially in border states like Arizona, Texas, and California, are insufficient to execute large-scale raids. Even at the federal level, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lacks the manpower for such an operation. These limitations have led to discussions about deploying the U.S. Army—a prospect that, while legally possible under an Executive Order, would break with long-standing norms of not using the military for domestic law enforcement.
The proposed strategy, reminiscent of a wartime mobilization, would involve targeting workplaces like construction sites, agricultural fields, and hotels where undocumented workers are concentrated. However, the academic notes that pursuing domestic workers individually—particularly women employed in private households—would be logistically and politically fraught.
The cost of executing mass deportations is staggering. Benítez Manaut estimates the price tag at $80 billion, dwarfing the $60 billion sent annually to Mexico in remittances. The deportation of Mexican nationals alone would have severe economic consequences, reducing remittance flows to $30-40 billion. The financial burden of repatriating migrants from distant countries like Nigeria, China, or Venezuela would be even higher due to the need for air transport.
Domestically, deportations would exacerbate labor shortages and drive up costs across multiple sectors. From agriculture to hospitality, industries that rely heavily on undocumented workers would face increased wages for documented employees, translating into higher prices for consumers. "The price of agricultural products, houses, hotel rooms, will rise," warns Benítez Manaut.
Humanitarian and Diplomatic Crises
The deportation of non-Mexican nationals presents additional challenges. For migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, forced returns could overwhelm Mexico’s border cities like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, straining shelters and social services. Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, which often refuse to accept deported nationals, would require extensive negotiations. The situation is further complicated by the strained diplomatic relations between the U.S. and these nations.
Migrants returning to economically unstable countries like Venezuela or Cuba face bleak prospects, becoming financial burdens on governments already grappling with crises. This dynamic risks further destabilizing these regions, potentially creating new waves of migration.
Mass deportations would not only disrupt labor markets but also strain U.S.-Mexico relations. The Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration risks overshadowing other critical bilateral issues, including trade, environmental cooperation, and combating drug trafficking.
For Mexico, the repercussions would be profound. Border cities could become bottlenecks for deported migrants, increasing social tensions and requiring urgent government intervention. Negotiations with the U.S. would become fraught, as Mexico seeks to mitigate the fallout while managing its own domestic pressures.
Trump’s immigration policies, while politically expedient, represent a gamble with far-reaching consequences. The proposed militarization of deportations, economic disruptions, and humanitarian crises could deepen divisions within the U.S. while straining international relationships.
As Benítez Manaut underscores, these policies would not only reshape the lives of millions of migrants but also reverberate across economies, communities, and governments on both sides of the border. The costs—financial, social, and moral—may far outweigh the perceived benefits of fulfilling a campaign promise.
In pursuing this aggressive agenda, the United States risks trading short-term political gains for long-term instability, both at home and abroad.
