Allen Ginder for American Thinker.com
In biology, the membrane defines the boundary of a cell, regulating what enters and exits to ensure the cell’s survival. Without this boundary, the cell disintegrates.
Similarly, a nation’s border defines its sovereignty, regulating the flow of people, goods, and ideas to protect its identity and security. President Donald Trump captured this truth when he asserted, “We do not have a state without a border.”
Just as a cell membrane is essential for life, a nation’s border is essential for its existence. The state’s role, at its core, is to provide law and order — establishing and enforcing laws that govern what crosses its borders. This includes regulating commodities, labor, and investment, not by dictating individual choices, but by ensuring that all actions comply with the rule of law. The debate over how much regulation is necessary often divides libertarians and conservatives, but ordinary Americans intuitively understand that uncontrolled illegal immigration is akin to finding an uninvited stranger in your home. It disrupts the order and security that borders are meant to protect.
The immigration issue was one of the key factors that brought Trump to the presidency. It even saved his life when a bullet grazed his ear as he turned his head toward a banner displaying a graph on illegal immigration. In principle, President Trump is right on immigration, and his stance resonates with the public. However, campaign promises and realities on the ground do not necessarily align.
Below, I summarize data from several studies on immigration, which present a slightly different picture from what rally rhetoric suggests.
According to the most recent Pew Research Center estimates, the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States grew to 11.0 million in 2022. This situation is indeed unacceptable, and changes are necessary — not only for Trump’s term, but also for the foreseeable future. To achieve this, amendments must be made to the nation’s laws.
America’s immigration laws, particularly regarding illegal border crossings, are astonishingly weak. Under the current law 8 USC § 1325, first-time offenders face a mere $50 to no more than $250 fine for attempted entry, six months in prison, or both — penalties so ridiculously lenient that they fail to deter determined migrants. Who wouldn’t take a chance if the punishment is virtually nonexistent?
Worse, the current wave of illegal immigration exploits asylum laws originally designed for humanitarian relief, not mass migration. The asylum system, rooted in the Refugee Act of 1980, was intended to protect individuals fleeing persecution, not to serve as a backdoor for economic migrants. Today, many migrants cross illegally, then immediately claim asylum upon apprehension. Once migrants utter the word “asylum,” they enter a legal labyrinth that can take years to resolve, during which time many are released into the country. The immigration court backlog has ballooned to 3.73 million cases as of January 2025, overwhelming the judicial system and complicating deportations. To address this, we must eliminate the loopholes that incentivize illegal crossings.
One bold proposal: Ban asylum claims for those who enter the country illegally. If a migrant trespasses the border without authorization, he should forfeit the right to seek asylum. This would keep illegal crossers under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, allowing for swift deportation rather than transferring them to an overburdened Judiciary. Such a law would face legal challenges, as asylum is a right under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the U.S. is bound via the 1967 Protocol. However, the U.S. could argue that asylum was never intended to reward illegal entry. After all, genuine refugees can apply for asylum at legal ports of entry. Barring asylum for illegal crossers would deter abuse of the system and restore order to border enforcement.
Why hasn’t this been seriously debated? President Trump focused on building a border wall perhaps because physical barriers are more visible than legal reforms. But walls can be breached; laws, when enforced, are harder to evade.
Illegal immigration, driven largely by the demand for cheap labor, has tangible consequences. Illegal aliens, who make up about 4.6% of the U.S. labor force despite being only 3.3% of the population, often work in low-wage sectors like agriculture and construction. The common perception is that they work mostly for cash, avoid taxation, and strain local resources like schools and hospitals, particularly in border states. There is no doubt that such concerns exist, but the situation is not as gloomy. The recent study from Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy concluded,
Undocumented immigrants [sic] pay substantial amounts toward the funding of public infrastructure, institutions, and services. Specifically, we find that in 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in taxes at the federal, state, and local levels. More than a third of that amount, $33.9 billion, went toward funding social insurance programs that these individuals are barred from accessing because of their immigration status.
In total, the federal tax contribution of undocumented immigrants amounted to $59.4 billion in 2022 while the state and local tax contribution stood at $37.3 billion. These figures make clear that immigration policy choices have substantial implications for public revenue at all levels of government.
Undoubtedly, public revenue would significantly increase if all cash transactions were taxable.
Beyond economics, illegal immigration raises concerns about personal security. While data from the Cato Institute shows that illegal aliens have lower crime rates than native-born citizens, high-profile incidents fuel public anxiety.
Trump’s campaign promise for mass deportations faces significant hurdles. The political intentions might be hindered by objective economic realities. Economic forces often prove stronger than political will, and Trump’s policies seem not to be exempt from this rule.
Most likely, the “mass deportation like we’ve never seen before” is something we will never see for several reasons.
First of all, deporting the estimated 11 million illegal aliens would be costly and logistically daunting. The American Immigration Councilestimated it could cost $315 billion, or $28,636 per person. The use of military planes for deportations only amplifies the expense. It is like scooping out the lake with a teaspoon. For mass deportation, one should expect the bussing of illegal aliens to the Mexican border, leaving the Mexican government responsible for the remainder of their journey home.
Secondly, millions of migrants are already entangled in the judicial system, waiting for asylum hearings. The Executive Branch’s deportation authority is limited to those who haven’t claimed asylum, gang members, and those denied asylum. With the immigration court backlog, mass deportations are impractical without major legal reforms.
Third, there’s also the labor question. If Trump is serious about onshoring American manufacturing, he must consider the labor force availability. With the unemployment rate at 4.1% as of February 2025, deporting millions could create labor shortages in key industries. The American Immigration Council warns that mass deportations could shrink GDP by $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion, which is a loss of 4.2 percent to 6.8 percent of annual U.S. GDP.
This raises a counterintuitive but pragmatic question: Might it be more economically feasible to accommodate some asylum-seekers already in the country rather than deport them? Integrating workers into industries facing shortages could bolster the economy, whereas deportations would drain resources and disrupt labor markets.
This is not to advocate for open borders — far from it. Borders must be enforced, and laws must be respected.
A sensible path forward includes strengthening border security through technology; personnel; and, yes, physical barriers where needed. It also requires reforming asylum laws to prevent abuse — for example, banning asylum claims for illegal crossers. Additionally, the deportation process should be streamlined for those who break the law. At the same time, we should offer a path to legal status for individuals who positively contribute to the economy. Finally, merit-based legal immigration should be encouraged to meet labor demands, particularly in industries critical to national security and economic growth. It’s very important to manage immigration through the law of the land rather than executive orders, as the latter are like dust — they can easily be swept away by a president from the opposing party.
To finish with an analogy from biology: Just as a primitive cell once absorbed another, forming mitochondria that strengthened the host, a nation can integrate outsiders — if done carefully. But in nature, only beneficial symbiosis survives. Likewise, America must control who crosses its borders, allowing only those who strengthen the country. Anything less risks harming the host.
Image: woodleywonderworks via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.
