Open Borders vs. Mass Deportation: Who Owns the West?

AIR estimates that illegal immigration imposes a net fiscal burden of approximately $150.7 billion annually on U.S. taxpayers, encompassing costs for education, healthcare, and law enforcement across federal, state, and local levels. The report argues that these expenditures, combined with wage suppression in low-skilled sectors, justify stricter border enforcement and large-scale removals. Critics dispute AIR's methodology, but the figure is widely cited in policy debates over deportation policy.

The UK National Audit Office reported that the Rwanda asylum partnership is projected to cost £700 million over five years, with payments of £370 million already made. The Home Office argues the scheme acts as a deterrent to illegal Channel crossings by removing the incentive to remain in the UK. The policy has been cited by proponents of mass deportation as a model for external processing and removal of unauthorized migrants.

A Cato Institute study analyzing Texas Department of Public Safety data from 2012 to 2018 found that illegal immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of homicide than native-born Americans and had lower overall criminal conviction rates. The research is frequently cited to counter claims that immigration fuels crime and to argue against mass deportation on public safety grounds.

The Center for American Progress estimates that deporting the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would cost between $400 billion and $600 billion in enforcement and lost economic output over a decade, reducing GDP by 2.6% and eliminating 6.8 million jobs. The analysis argues that mass deportation is economically unfeasible and would disrupt key industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality.