Following the money
The privatized immigration enforcement industry in the U.S. already consists of multibillion-dollar ventures. Companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic, which operate private detention centres, have historically seen their stock prices soar after hardline immigration announcements. These corporations spend millions on lobbying efforts to expand detention and enforcement policies, including supporting Trump’s electoral campaign - and they have already been generously rewarded for it.
Beyond detention, private contractors profit from transportation, healthcare services, surveillance technology, and legal processing—creating a robust economic incentive to perpetuate and expand enforcement, irrespective of its efficacy or human impact.
The spectacle of enforcement
The UK’s Rwanda plan offers a cautionary example of how immigration policies can become central in the political debate despite practical failure. Despite spending over £318 million and facing persistent legal challenges, the plan resulted in no person being removed from the UK. And yet, it dominated British political discourse for over a year, serving as campaign material and distracting from other pressing issues. In fact, the Labour government just published a new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which heavily focuses on being tough on border security.
The spectacularization of immigration enforcement, where dramatic announcements overshadow substantive results, is likely to characterize U.S. deportation efforts. Even partial implementation can achieve political objectives internally and internationally, while funnelling substantial taxpayer funds into political allies and business interests.
Lessons from Europe
The European Union’s efforts to outsource migration control to neighbouring countries in North Africa and further south reveal the unintended consequences of aggressive border policies. In Niger, one of the poorer countries in the world and the higher receiver of development aid per capita, anti-smuggling laws disrupted traditional trade routes, destabilizing entire regions. Tunisia’s EU-backed anti-migration measures sparked diplomatic crises and domestic unrest. Meanwhile, Libya’s EU-supported coast guard operations led to documented human rights abuses and further regional instability.
These examples underscore a key reality: forcing neighbouring countries to accept mass deportations or implement strict border controls often triggers economic and political crises, creating conditions that fuel further migration. Latin American nations, particularly Mexico, are attempting to resist U.S. plans that risk destabilizing their economies or political systems through sudden and large population returns.
But Trump’s highly choreographed strategy leaves little room for these considerations. His deportation plans are designed primarily for domestic political gain—to justify his power grab—and for international impact, projecting a new image of the U.S. as a dominant force in the Americas.
.x13870be9.jpg?&q=80&f=webp)