By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration planned to impose daily fines of $998 on migrants with final deportation orders who remained in the U.S., potentially seizing their assets to cover unpaid amounts. This plan, based on a 1996 law, would retroactively apply for up to five years, leading to fines exceeding $1 million in some cases. The White House, particularly Stephen Miller, pushed for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement the policy and handle asset seizures, despite CBP raising concerns about feasibility and significant resource requirements. The Biden administration subsequently halted these measures.
Read the original article here
Trump plans to fine migrants $998 a day for failing to leave the country after a deportation order is issued. The sheer amount of the fine, just shy of $1000, is striking. It’s a dramatic figure designed to incentivize departure, and the question of how this will be enforced inevitably arises.
The practicality of collecting such fines from a population likely lacking significant financial resources is questionable. Many of these individuals are already struggling to make ends meet, working low-wage jobs and living hand-to-mouth. Where would this money come from? The suggestion of turning to “free prison labor” to offset unpaid fines paints a grim picture of potential exploitation and further hardship.
The proposed fine immediately sparks comparisons with previous instances of seemingly arbitrary and excessive financial penalties imposed by the Trump administration. It feels like a pattern, a continuation of a strategy that prioritizes financial gain over humanitarian concerns. This policy seems less focused on a genuine solution to immigration issues, and more like a revenue-generating scheme targeting a vulnerable population.
Concerns about the legality of such a large fine are certainly warranted. The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines seems directly relevant here. Would any court uphold such a substantial penalty? The likelihood of successful legal challenges is high, and the whole process raises questions about due process and fair treatment under the law. Would this approach hold up in court? Is this even legally sound?
The potential for abuse and corruption is another significant concern. The sheer number of people potentially subject to this fine – estimates suggest around 1.5 million individuals currently facing deportation orders – presents a massive opportunity for exploitation and potential injustice. Could this system be easily manipulated? Could it be used to unfairly target specific groups or individuals?
Then there’s the question of what happens when migrants can’t afford the daily $998 fine. The idea of involuntary servitude to pay off the debt is troubling, raising serious ethical and human rights concerns. This is reminiscent of debtors’ prisons, a practice long considered archaic and inhumane. Could this unintentionally recreate a system of modern-day indentured servitude? Is this a return to a bygone era of punitive justice?
The irony is not lost on many that those targeted by this fine are often the ones contributing to the economy through taxes, while many wealthy individuals and corporations avoid their fair share of financial responsibility. The hypocrisy of punishing the poor while the rich escape accountability fuels public outrage. It feels like an example of prioritizing punishment over a meaningful solution, a symptom of a larger societal problem.
Ultimately, the proposed fine serves as another flashpoint in the ongoing debate surrounding immigration, highlighting the deep divisions and contrasting viewpoints within society. It forces a re-examination of the role of financial penalties in immigration enforcement and sparks wider discussions about justice, fairness, and the proper balance between security and human rights. The potential repercussions go far beyond simply financial penalties; it touches upon the very fabric of American values and principles of fairness.