A Free-Market Guide To Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

By Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute | November 19, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump based much of his campaign on promises to crack down on immigration and carry out mass deportations. Politically, this was likely a winning issue for Trump after social media exposed millions of Americans to countless reports and videos of foreign nationals getting free cash, free housing, food allowances, and overall special treatment at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, actual taxpaying Americans endured inflation-fueled price hikes and a worsening economy while being harangued by the smug upper classes about the need to be “welcoming.” Many voters chose to support the candidate who wasn’t in favor of importing a new taxpayer-subsidized underclass.

Because of this, Trump is likely to prioritize delivering at least some of his promised immigration crackdown.

However, one does not need to be an advocate of open borders to have concerns when one hears about a federal law enforcement agency engaging in a “crackdown.” Federal officials don’t exactly have a stellar record when it comes to respecting the property rights of peaceful, law-abiding Americans, even when the purported target is foreigners. The countless violations of the rights of Americans under the Patriot Act and the “war on terror” are examples of this.

On the other hand, many aspects of the proposed Trump crackdown are, one might say, “no-brainers” and have no apparent downside at all. These include cutting off all funding of any kind to migrants, and deporting all foreign nationals with a known criminal record.

Nonetheless, some aspects of Trump’s immigration policy have the potential for fueling further expansion of a federal police state. These include any deportation plan that involves a “drag net” and places peaceful residents under suspicion for no offense other than “looking like” a migrant.

The No-Brainer Solutions

Immigration has long been subsidized in the United States in the sense that there are low barriers to new migrants benefiting from a bevy of social benefit programs. Immigrants who achieve status as refugees or asylees can access welfare programs almost immediately. Even run-of-the-mill legal migrants need only wait five years to begin living off taxpayer-funded benefits.

These subsidization schemes have only grown more aggressive in recent years. It is now well known that many American cities and states—not to mention the federal government—offer “free” cash, housing, food, and more.

This has done much to attract the flood of migrants that has arrived in the US in recent years. Earlier this year, for example, The New York Post reported that the mayor of New York is giving away pre-paid cash cards—each carrying “up to $10,000“— to foreign nationals in New York. Most of these migrants have arrived in New York with no invitation, no employment prospects, and no plan for housing. But most of them plan on staying. And why shouldn’t they? Upon arrival, thousands of them immediately went on the public dole in some way or another, relying on taxpayer-funded shelters, housing programs, and a variety of sources for “free” food. The federal government also provides free transportation to various American communities for many migrants, including 400,000 free riders in 2023 alone.

Reversing this should be seen as “low-hanging fruit” by the Trump administration. Obviously, any and all access to federal dollars should be cut off immediately. This is true for both legal and illegal immigrants. Immigration needs to be a fully private-market process, not a taxpayer-subsidized activity.

Any state or local government that attempts to entice more migrants with social benefits programs should lose all access to federal grants. All federal dollars should be cut off from any government schools that cater to illegal immigrants. Any NGO that attempts to funnel taxpayer dollars to immigrants should be blacklisted from any and all federal grants. These NGOs are still free to offer services to anyone they want—just not with taxpayer dollars.

Many of these programs for putting immigrants on welfare are nowadays facilitated by smart-phone apps. These include the CBP One app which is designed to streamline migrants’ requests for asylum. This, of course, is an attempt to circumvent the normal immigration process and get migrants on social benefits even faster. Obviously, all of these apps should be immediately disabled.

Note that none of this requires any law-enforcement contact with migrants at all. These solutions simply cut off migrants’ access to the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers. The phone apps will no longer work. The free money will no longer materialize to provide free food and housing for migrants. Those migrants who actually have jobs and contribute to the community can continue to do so. Those who relied on stealing from taxpayers will self-deport when the free ride disappears.

The option of immigration—including legal immigration— to the United States must be fully privatized so it is only an option for those with the ability to support themselves economically.

Note that none of this violates anyone’s property rights. No one’s right to travel is limited by cutting off free money for migrants. No one is being prevented from contracting with another private party for employment or housing. People simply are being forced to do all this with their own private property.

Other Laissez-Faire Solutions: No Fast Path to Citizenship

Another key in the equation is limiting access to citizenship. Citizenship is not a property right of any kind, and there is no such thing as a natural right to citizenship in any particular place. Excluding the tiny number of migrants who are genuinely stateless, all foreign nationals arriving in the United States already enjoy the benefits of citizenship somewhere.

Moreover, gaining citizenship in the United States brings with it a variety of economic benefits. It provides permanent access to the welfare state. The granting of citizenship also provides foreign nationals—few of whom renounce their citizenship in their home countries—greater access to US government institutions.

The benefits of citizenship ought to be greatly limited for new immigrants, with a waiting period of at least a decade, or perhaps even twenty years. Again, this does not limit a migrant’s ability to fully exercise his or her property rights.

Birthright citizenship, a “right” invented by a federal judge, should also be abolished.

The Problem with Mass Deportations

Ultimately, when we consider options for limiting migration, while also respecting property rights, self-deportation needs to be the focus. The alternative is to empower the federal government to track down and round up countless US residents, demand “papers, please!” and then deport those without the proper government forms.

Many supporters of mass deportation plans seem to think that federal agents can, through some magical power, identify illegal immigrants on sight. The reality is that immigration status must be determined by an investigation into whether or not a resident has the proper paperwork.

Now, it is true that many illegal immigrants will essentially volunteer for deportation. Such people include criminals who are convicted of real crimes. Clearly, it does not require any sort of drag net to simply deport convicts who have already attracted the attention of authorities. Similarly, in a system that denies taxpayer funded benefits to foreign nationals, immigrants who attempt to collect social benefits would be guilty of fraud, and thus volunteer themselves for deportation. The same would be true of any non-citizen who attempts to vote.

But what about immigrants who remain peaceful, self-supporting, and keep to themselves? The way federal agents have generally identified these people is by harassing residents through internal checkpoints and harassment of people who “look like” immigrants.

For example, one of the great overreaches of federal power—one that is blatantly unconstitutional—is the 100-mile border zone. In 1946, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1946. The law granted immigration agents the authority “to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.” This power was limited to a “reasonable distance” from the US border. Originally, this “reasonable distance” was 25 miles. But it was unilaterally extended by the Department of Justice to 100 miles without any change to the statute. Given that “the border” includes both land and water borders, two-thirds of Americans live within this border zone. Entire states are included within the zone, including Florida, Michigan, and Maine.

Many peaceful Americans get caught up in this bureaucratic nightmare. Thanks to the hundred-mile zone American citizens who don’t carry their passports on them at all times can be harassed and arrested by Border Patrol agents, even well inside the US border. As the New York Post describes it, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are arresting US citizens by mistake and holding them at detention centers for months—sometimes even years.”

There is nothing shocking here. This is how government agencies work.

Yet, many Trump supporters are cheering the idea that an army of government agents be let loose on American cities and towns, as if this will not affect ordinary, law-abiding citizens in any way. This is the same attitude that gave us the Patriot Act, NSA spying programs, and everything else justified by the despotic slogan of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.”

Indeed, there are countless ways that the federal government can harass ordinary citizens and violate their property rights. Consider, for example, how anti-immigration advocates promote despotism with programs like “eVerify.” The activists want federal bureaucrats to determine if you have a right to work. And then there are the calls for new laws designed to prosecute private citizens who are guilty of the “crime” of using their own private property to rent apartments to immigrants or pay immigrants for services rendered.

It’s one thing to build a wall, to deport convicted criminals, or end taxpayer-funded subsidies for migrants. It’s quite another thing when federal agents start asking us for our papers and telling us what we can do with our own property. 

A related video: 

Ryan McMaken is executive editor at the Mises Institute, a former economist for the State of Colorado, and the author of two books: Breaking Away: The Case of Secession, Radical Decentralization, and Smaller Polities and Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Original article link