Michael Mann 
In his recent op-ed, Eduardo Porter pointed out a reality many already recognize: Donald Trump’s ambitious deportation plan would not only be difficult but essentially impossible. While Trump might relish the idea of deporting millions, logistical nightmares, budget strains, and ethical considerations stand firmly in his way. This latest immigration gambit bears an all-too-familiar resemblance to his 2016 promise to build a wall—complete with the outrageous notion that Mexico would foot the bill. Spoiler alert: they didn’t.
What Trump’s campaign thrives on isn’t in the delivery of promises, but in the spectacle they create. The grandstanding, the bluster, the outlandish claims—this is all part of the show. The real goal? Feeding a steady stream of resentment toward immigrants, all for the sake of stoking his base ahead of the next election.
But beyond the logistical failings of Trump’s immigration ideas lies something even more troubling: their immorality. The deportation of millions, including parents torn from U.S.-born children and families ripped apart, is an affront to the values many believe America should stand for. And while Trump’s critics point out the absurdity of mobilizing the National Guard or stretching ICE agents beyond their capacities, the bigger question should be: why is this even on the table?
Some optimists lean on the belief that America’s legal system would curb such extreme measures. They cite the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military’s involvement in civilian law enforcement. But there’s always a loophole. Enter the Insurrection Act—a piece of legislation that, in the wrong hands, could be weaponized to justify nearly anything in the name of national security, including large-scale deportations.
Even beyond the immediate harm to immigrants and their families, Trump’s plan, if somehow executed, would cause ripple effects across the U.S. economy and society. Construction costs would rise, farms would struggle to harvest crops, and service industries—from childcare to healthcare—would face labor shortages. Let’s not forget the havoc that widespread raids on workplaces, schools, and churches would wreak on already fragile communities. Watching such trauma unfold would shock even those who support strict immigration policies.
Still, as surreal as it may sound, these threats resonate with parts of the electorate. Trump’s supporters don’t seem fazed by the moral and practical disasters his plans would create. Instead, they cheer him on, basking in the fantasy that their perceived enemies could be neatly and efficiently removed from the country.
But in the end, what does this say about us? If a candidate whose family has been shaped by immigration can capitalize on demonizing immigrants, perhaps the real threat isn’t the logistics of deportation—but the ideas themselves.
