A panel discussion held by the International Network for Migration Research (INIR) on April 9 in Washington DC sought to answer a difficult question: Can democracies actually deport large numbers of people, and what happens if they try?
Despite years of political debate, mass deportation is an extremely difficult task in democratic systems on both sides of the Atlantic where courts, legal protections, and bureaucratic constraints play a major role. The panelists discussed what is politically popular, what is legally possible, and what can be achieved in practice.
In his introduction, Mark Krikorian (CIS) called the deportation of illegal immigrants an “existential issue,” while in Minneapolis we recently saw the kind of resistance deportations provoke, and Europe is struggling with enforcing only a fraction of its existing deportation orders.
Jim Robb (NumbersUSA) emphasized that in democracies, the success of deportations depends on public support. It is only possible to act against the will of the voters for so long; sooner or later, those in power must adapt to the will of the people. According to the latest results from the March 2026 Harvard-Harris poll, support for Donald Trump on the issue of immigration has remained strong over the past year. Seventy-seven percent of respondents, regardless of party affiliation, support the deportation of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, while the proportion of those supporting the deportation of all illegal immigrants has not decreased even in the wake of the scandals surrounding the Minneapolis raids. At the same time, the majority does not support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and would cut off funding for the agency if it does not change its practices. According to Robb, the poll clearly shows that Americans support deportations as long as it is done quietly in a way that does not rub their faces in it. A solution to this situation could be to make illegal stay economically unfeasible: all employers would be required to use the electronic verification system for Social Security cards necessary for legal employment; then word would quickly spread that there is no more work on the black market, and illegal immigrants would prefer to return home.
According to Matt O’Brien (FAIR), there would be no legal obstacles to deportations; even an undocumented immigrant whose child was born in the U.S. and is already a U.S. citizen can be lawfully deported. According to a rule in effect since a 1892 Supreme Court ruling, it is part of a sovereign nation-state’s authority to determine who is admitted to its territory. However, the process by which final deportation decisions are made is unclear to the public, and many consider violations of immigration laws to be acceptable. Federal district judges fail to recognize that immigration issues fall outside their jurisdiction, and even if the Supreme Court rules against them in favor of the Trump administration, it takes years for these decisions to be finalized. According to O’Brien, the situation is as if someone were to steal the Mona Lisa, hang it over their fireplace, and when the gendarmes catch up with them 30 years later, defend themselves by saying, “Well, I’ve grown very attached to the painting over the years.” The thief would be laughed out of court, but when it comes to immigration issues, the public’s reaction is completely different—even though protecting the local population carries more weight than the interests of foreigners. At present, it seems that the legislature is unwilling to pass appropriate laws, the courts are playing the role of the legislature, and the executive branch is doing the work of everyone else.
Regarding the migration situation in Europe, Viktor Marsai (MRI) said that deportation is the Achilles’ heel of the system. Less than 20 percent of ordered deportations are successfully carried out, and we do not even know for certain how many undocumented immigrants are currently in the EU. There is a lack of political will to resolve the situation—on the one hand, because decision-makers dislike disturbing images, such as those of crying small children, and on the other hand, because the prevailing European ethos is humanitarian, favors nonprofit organizations that support migrants and people like the Lufthansa pilot who refused to take off with deported migrants on board the flight. The deportation of millions cannot be carried out quietly and out of sight. The legal framework does not help the authorities’ work either. The police, for example, cannot enter the presumed residences of illegal migrants, and if only 51 passengers can be rounded up for a deportation flight planned to carry 200 people, the plane will not take off, lest the government face a parliamentary inquiry over the waste of resources. Cooperation with safe third countries can help, but only if European states employ both incentives and sanctions. In third countries, the EU is typically the largest donor, but until recently it has been reluctant to use the withdrawal of aid as a threat. It is unclear whether the return centers currently being planned will provide a real solution or merely postpone addressing the problems.
The participants agreed that in Western democracies, public policy is currently driven by sentimentality, while objective reality is treated as secondary because it does not feel or look as good.
