President Trump’s powerful dual-approach—combining targeted deportations with incentives for self-deportation—is reshaping U.S. immigration policy. Encouraging unlawful residents to leave voluntarily via the CBP Home app, while removing criminals, aligns with historical examples like Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback. Since this initiative started, nearly 1 million migrants have departed, shrinking the labor pool and raising wages. Strong border measures under Trump are driven by national security and constitutional authority.

Key Definitions

Self-Deportation refers to undocumented migrants voluntarily leaving the U.S., often incentivized with stipends and streamlined processes. Mass deportations involve government-led removals of unauthorized residents, a costly and resource-heavy method. Operation Wetback, launched in 1954 under President Eisenhower, paired deportation with initiatives that prompted widespread self-deportation—10 self-exits for each forced removal—offering a historical model for today’s strategy.

The Role of DHS

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), established through the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and operational since March 1, 2003, consolidates 22 agencies—TSA, FEMA, CBP, ICE, Secret Service—under one Cabinet agency. It’s responsible for border control, anti‑terrorism, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, maritime safety, and disaster response, all to protect U.S. citizens and infrastructure  .

Trump’s Immigration Priority

National security topped Trump’s agenda. Citing a 50 % increase in unauthorized residents during the Biden administration, Trump, with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and border czar Tom Homan, implemented a two-pronged plan. They targeted criminal aliens for formal deportation while encouraging others to voluntarily self-deport by registering, offering a $1,000 stipend, and using the CBP Home app  .

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry

Under Article II powers and Article IV Section 4’s guarantee to protect states against invasion, Trump issued a proclamation suspending physical entry of aliens considered part of an “invasion” across the southern border. DHS, in coordination with State and Justice Departments, must enforce this suspension until the invasion has ceased.

This suspension reinforces the executive branch’s duty to respond swiftly to threats impacting national sovereignty. Legal scholars have debated its scope, but supporters argue that unprecedented surges at the border constitute grounds for invoking constitutional emergency powers. The policy marks one of the most assertive immigration enforcement moves in modern U.S. history.

 

Why Secure Borders Matter

Secure borders are foundational to national safety and community stability—like homeowners strengthening houses with fences, alarms, cameras, and locks to protect what matters. Similarly, controlling entry and exit prevents crime, terrorism, and unchecked population flow, supporting public trust and orderly immigration.

Effective border security is not just about enforcement; it enables responsible humanitarian entry, protects labor standards, and prevents trafficking networks from exploiting loopholes. Nations across the globe, from Australia to Hungary, maintain strict entry protocols for similar reasons. A porous border invites lawlessness; a secure border invites lawful opportunity, fair process, and national self-determination.

 

Effects and Outcomes

Preliminary data shows nearly 1 million migrants self-deported, decreasing the foreign-born workforce by one million and raising average wages to $36.24 per hour in May. Despite critics’ concerns over labor shortages and social disruption, economic indicators suggest positive effects for American workers. The $1,000 DC incentive is far cheaper than the $17,100 per-person deportation cost. CBP Home has over 2,500 registrants—but experts caution re-entry bans may apply regardless of voluntary departure.

Employers in construction, agriculture, and hospitality report tightening labor conditions, but many are adapting through increased automation and recruitment of legal workers. The shift also appears to be nudging companies toward better compliance with employment verification laws. Long-term impacts on inflation and productivity remain under close review.

Takeaway

Trump’s dual-track immigration approach marks a major policy shift—favoring voluntary compliance over mass enforcement. Yet compassion remains vital as families and asylum seekers face difficult choices. We should uphold the rule of law while recognizing the humanity of those affected. Let’s support sound policy, advocate for fair processes, and ensure regular pathways so that legal migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers can rebuild peacefully in our nation.

 

Click to explore further: