Donald Trump's Immigration Plan's Death Toll

"You're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely" - DT

"Humanely?" 

I doubt that even if Donald Trump is elected that he’d be able to detain and deport ~11 million illegal and undocumented immigrants that are currently in the United States, but I find a shocking lack of analysis on what would be the human toll if such a policy was implemented at the end of the day. Such a proposal being "successful" in forcefully ejecting millions of people from the United States in a short time frame would not only levy heavy tolls on those immigrants, but also their loved ones, others living in the same communities, and people around the world that rely on American agriculture for their nourishment. This would also likely put many more law enforcement officers in harm’s way as well, putting them more at risk. We should know the risks involved in such a currently popular proposal and be wary of government's efficacy and efficiency in conducting population transfers not seen since the reign of Josef Stalin. 

Our current immigration policy is flawed in a couple ways related to the bureaucracy of the immigration process which can out people on waiting lists over two decades long, a bloated welfare system which some immigrants exploit (but usually is really about the same as or even less average American citizen), and that pesky drug war. These issues are rarely expressed in the immigration debate, but another overlooked issue is the human cost of deportation. Illegal immigrants are more susceptible to violent crime in America and are afraid to report crimes due to fear of deportation. Deportations are something to be feared as detention centers for these immigrants have been known to be poorly run and have histories of human rights abuses in multiple states across the US. Health care for immigrants in detention has been routinely ignored and have led to the death upwards of ~20 detainees yearly due to medical neglect and many more are subjected to inhumane treatment and sexual abuse, but many cases go either unreported or are covered up due to the lack of transparency in America’s immigration system. One such case is the one of Nery Romero, from El Salvador, who died in detention but officials still continued to falsely record giving him medicine after his death and there are other such stories. 

And many detained immigrants aren't real criminals

The deportation itself can also be dangerous to immigrants that are shipped back to their place of origin which is often riddled with dangerous actors which caused them to leave in the first place. Many immigrants, many of which are children, are abused or killed on their return to violent places such as the crime riddled and cartel controlled areas of Central America which have some of the highest homicide rates in the world. 

An aggressive deportation policy would also put many other people at risk, such as the family members of illegal immigrants or others in communities with illegal immigrants. A militarization of America’s police force over the years has led to over 50,000 SWAT team raids, mostly trying to conduct drug busts, annually which has resulted in numerous unfortunate deaths and botched raids along with the mass incarceration of non-violent offenders. To expand this militarization to immigration enforcement against ~11 million people instead of just ~120,000 odd drug dealers that are estimated to function in the US would likely lead to more unfortunate deaths and abuse across the United States at the hands of a militarized government agency that is almost guaranteed to infringe upon the lives and liberties of many Americans while they attempt to apprehend ~11 million people across the continent. All the while, crime rates may even rise if mass deportations occur in many cities as communities are ripped apart. Removing the threat of deportation to undocumented immigrants would also free up resources to go after the real threat of the minority of violent criminals who are undocumented instead of fighting a fruitless and tyrannical battle against all undocumented immigrants.

America currently deports well over 400,000 immigrants a year, but to reach a level to see 11 million deported over a 4 year presidency America would have to deport around 2.75 million a year without taking into account new immigrants that likely wouldn’t have too much trouble with finding a way around a wall. America’s deportation infrastructure may not be able to handle a 6 to 7-fold or more increase in deportations needed to rid the United States of its undocumented immigrants. Detention centers would be overflowing, and mass returns to dangerous areas would likely cause untold amounts of abuse and death and would put severe strains on communities and law enforcement in the United States. 

Another worrisome aspect of deporting all of the illegal immigrant population is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of seasonal agricultural workers are undocumented and help America feed itself and people around the world. What would be the implication of taking hundreds of thousands of manual labor agricultural jobs that Americans don’t really want do to food production? Short staffed farms would likely not be able to keep up with demand even if they tried hired legal citizens to make up the difference. World hunger has decreased over the years, but such a shock to the supply side of the world’s breadbasket could reverse this trend and cause more strife around the world. 

We can also look at other historic events of massed forced migrations to see how deadly they can become. Stalin utilized forced deportations of various ethnic groups such as the Volga Germans, Baltic peoples, and many other ethnic groups and farm owners to help cull their numbers. The "Trail of Tears” is another such example of a mass population transfer which is considered a dark stain on America’s history. It is important to note that these population transfers would pale in comparison to the deportation of 11 million people. 

Victimized children of Stalin's population transfers loaded into a cattle car

It’s ultimately hard to estimate how many people would die from a massive deportation regime that ejects all the illegal immigrants from the United States mainly because we don’t know exactly how many are being killed now by the current US government’s policies under Bush and Obama (and would continue under a new Clinton presidency). But we do know that nearly 15 die in detention and around 160 die after being deported to Mexico and Central America, and if you can estimate that 175 odd people die each year from America’s deportation policy and an expansion to a rate to export nearly 6 times as many people a year would come out to around ~1050 deaths annually for 4 years which would total 4200. This doesn’t take into account the likely exponential increase due to the huge expansion of the deportation apparatus which would be flawed with inefficiency and abuse, as with most government agencies when they expand, so the numbers could very well be much higher. This also doesn’t include deaths likely to spawn from botched law enforcement operations and the decrease in food production. 

This can be put into context against America’s civilian casualties in the War on Terror which doesn’t currently eclipse ~4000 casualties even including the 9/11 attacks. This low estimate of ~1050 a year would also be cover 15% of America’s total yearly homicides. Again, it should be noted that there is more evidence to suggest that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crime than the native born Americans, so it’s dubious, disingenuous, and disgusting to claim that killing off over 1000 people a year in mass deportations would save lives. It's tax payer subsidized killings of at the least worse of ~4000 people, according to this educated guess, and possibly thousands more at its worst. 

Again, with almost no transparency in the US government’s immigration policies, lacking data on the total number of abused and killed immigrants, the overall vagueness of mass deportation plans, and the sheer scale of it all would put major error bars around this estimate which is more of a ballpark estimate than it is a really careful analysis. Though it is important to keep in mind the human toll of deportation when immigration policy is discussed, especially when policies would expand upon the brutality. 

Congressional Reform

Congress sucks, but it doesn’t have to. Or at least it can suck in a more representative, transparent, and balanced way. Here's some issues that I see with Congress as it exists, and my primate brain's way to fix it.

Problem: Dilution of Representation of the American Voter

Today’s political environment shows that the American voter is disconnected from what goes on in Washington and that the people that are suppose to represent the people in the House of Representatives is a shell of what it is designed to be.  

Solution: Increase the Size of The House of Representatives to ~1,200  

Originally the House was to increase along with population growth, but this was halted in the 1920s as population shifts caused the House to think more about their seats than about how to give representation to the American voter. So expanding the membership of the House should be a straightforward fix. More voices and ideas with a higher emphasis on local communities should make Washington politics more accessible to the average American.

Don’t worry about costs, because you can easily cut the salaries of the members of Congress by more than half to reduce the possible tax increase in growing the House.

There's a lot of room for salary cuts.

Problem: Lack of Real Choice

In the majoritarian districts, you can either vote for the candidate that has a shot at winning or you essentially “waste” your vote. There are rarely any moderate, independent, or third party options and you’re forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

Solution: Multi-member Districts with STV Voting Method

Single Transferable Voting is a methodology that applies to multi-member voting districts. In essence it allows for people to vote for all the candidates that they like ranked from most preferable to least. If your top pick isn’t popular enough to gain a seat by reaching a certain percentage, then your vote is transferred to your second choice and so on. This system allows for voters to pick candidates based on their ideas and principles and not solely on party affiliation. The multi-member districts also allow for people that aren’t typically represented to have a voice such as rural liberals and urban conservatives while allowing 3rd Parties and Independents a better chance at competing for a seat.

What an SVT election looks like

What the SVT accomplishes in theory is it creates proportionally represented districts that better reflect voter ideals.

Here's a good explainer of the SVT as well. 

Problem: Infestation of Special Interests

Like flies on a rotting corpse, lobbyists have devoured our legislative body. Money is poured into congressional campaigns in exchange for favorable treatment even if it goes against the will of the people. This perpetuates the stagnation of Congress and debilitates any action that goes against a strong lobbying group. Yet to ban lobbyists you would have to limit the Constitutional right to petition the government.

Solution: Term Limits & Increased Transparency

In addition to adding new and diverse blood into Congress, term limits would make this a continual and fluid process that also cuts back on entrenched Washington lobbyists being able to fund their selected candidates to victory for countless election cycles. Limiting representatives to 3 two-year terms and senators to 2 six-year terms would be a useful measure in cutting back the power of special interests.

In conjunction with this, a publicly accessible database which would hold funding records and communication transcripts of lobbyist activities should be constructed in order to improve government transparency as well. Citizens should be able to find out which lobbyists are funding their candidates, which would further disincentives shady lobbying practices.

Problem: Lack of State Input in Federal Activity

The original role of the Senate was to be a legislative body that isn’t subject to populism and can check the powers of the Federal government which is a real concern for any group who doesn’t have their preferred party running government.

Solution: Tricameralism

The 17th amendment to the Constitution removes the States’ abilities to appoint Senators, and that’s overall a good thing to have them popularly elected. However there was a point to having the States choose in that it restrained Federal overreaches and is more immune to popularism. Creating a new chamber of Congress, made up of a single delegate from each state chosen by that state’s legislature every 5 years, would help promote State governments in Washington. This being a pseudo-democratic body, it would need to have it’s abilities limited kinda like the British House of Lords. It's role should be focused on reviewing laws and executive orders, while being able to halt legislation with a ⅔ or perhaps ¾ supermajority. It may not need the ability to draft legislation, but it may not be a terrible idea to give the delegates that capability. This would give states a pseudo-veto and a more prominent at the Federal level. It would also be a possible check against the populism that decays many democracies.

I'd call it the Federal Assembly or the Federal Council.

All this will likely never happen and would require something on par with revolution to happen anyway. Congress will continually be dysfunctional, corrupt, and divided between two useless bickering factions.