U.S. Senate GOP Aims for Early Mass Deportations in 2024, Claims Graham

A prominent Republican on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted the party’s agenda for the upcoming session, asserting that border security will be a top priority once President-elect Donald Trump assumes office. The plan includes utilizing a process known as budget reconciliation to advance the border security package rapidly.

Trump has pledged to his supporters a significant crackdown on illegal immigration, which includes mass deportations. South Carolina’s Senator Lindsey Graham, during a judiciary hearing, expressed that Republican lawmakers will aim to expand detention center capacities, recruit additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and enhance technological resources for southern border enforcement.

“To gain control of the border, early deportations are essential,” Graham stated. “Without outflow, the inflow will persist.” Nevertheless, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, cautioned that such measures could entail exorbitant expenses.

He estimated that the mass deportation of one million individuals might cost the U.S. approximately $88 billion annually, given the scope of arrests, detentions, and removals. Presently, an estimated 13 million undocumented individuals reside in the United States. The committee hearing, predominantly led by Democrats who currently control the Senate, probed the effects of Trump’s deportation promises.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois asserted the need for “mass accountability” instead of mass deportations, emphasizing the importance of reforming the immigration system to safeguard the nation while honoring its legacy as a haven for immigrants.

The budget reconciliation process Graham cited could potentially enable Republicans to circumvent the 60-vote filibuster, a significant hurdle in the Senate. Typically employed when one party has unified control of the House, Senate, and the White House, this method requires only a simple majority in both chambers to pass legislation.

Moreover, Graham mentioned that Republicans would work to restrict the legal immigration options for individuals who entered the country through executive orders. The GOP has been vocally opposed to programs that allow temporary work and residency for nationals from countries such as Haiti and Venezuela.

“If you’re here illegally, prepare to depart,” Graham asserted. The discussion also touched on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, currently facing scrutiny in federal courts due to the Trump administration’s previous attempts to terminate it.

Foday Turay, a DACA participant and assistant district attorney, elaborated on the potential impact of his deportation, citing his role as the primary income provider for his family. He voiced concerns about leaving his U.S. citizen wife and disabled mother-in-law, who is undergoing cancer treatment.

In a contrasting narrative, witness Patty Morin recounted the tragic murder of her daughter by an undocumented individual with a prior criminal history. This prompted Durbin to delineate between criminal offenders and others who may face deportation, including individuals like Turay who contribute positively to society.

Despite skepticism around the logistics of employing the National Guard for deportations, Graham expressed optimism about finding solutions for the DACA issue. Durbin, however, voiced strong reservations about integrating military personnel into immigration enforcement operations, warning it could undermine military readiness and public trust.

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar argued that mass deportations would not only wreak havoc on affected communities but also impose significant economic burdens. Reichlin-Melnick highlighted that many sectors, particularly agriculture and construction, would bear the brunt of losing a substantial workforce.

Finally, some lawmakers, like Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, suggested that local authorities take on deportation responsibilities, although immigration enforcement traditionally falls under federal jurisdiction. Art Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, agreed with this perspective, citing local law enforcement’s unique capability to address community-specific immigration issues effectively.