logo
Some immigrants chose to leave the US. But is ‘self-deportation' really becoming a thing?

Some immigrants chose to leave the US. But is ‘self-deportation' really becoming a thing?

The Guardian14 hours ago

Their stories have emerged in new reports and on social media feeds: individuals and families, sometimes of mixed immigration status, who have lived in the United States for years and are now choosing to leave. Or, as it's sometimes called, 'self-deport'.
There was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's former deputy communications director Diego de la Vega, who lived as an undocumented New Yorker for 23 years before he and his wife left for Colombia in December, shortly after Donald Trump's election. Or the decorated army veteran, a permanent resident in the US for nearly 50 years, who left for South Korea this week after being targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice). Or newlyweds Alfredo Linares, an undocumented chef, and his wife, Raegan Klein, a US citizen, who recently moved their lives from Los Angeles to Mexico.
But experts warn that just because we see stories of so-called 'self-deportation', we should be careful about believing there's any real trend. Not only does taking this route create potentially serious legal and financial issues for those leaving, convincing the public that a lot of people are self-deporting is also part of Trump's larger strategy to create an illusion of higher deportation numbers than he can truly deliver.
The emphasis on self-deportation is clearly a recognition by the administration that they can't really accomplish what they've promised, says Alexandra Filindra, professor of political science and psychology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. 'It's way too costly to identify, arrest, process and deport large numbers of immigrants, especially when there are so many court fights and so many organizations that are willing to support the rights of immigrants.'
Filindra says Trump is trying to take the cheap route, hoping his performative politics – everything from the widespread Ice raids across the US to sending the national guard to Los Angeles – will get people to pack up on their own accord.
It's impossible to put a precise number on how many immigrants have decided to leave the country since Trump took power. But for those who have, the decision is deeply personal.
Linares, who was born in Mexico, still thinks of California as home because it was where he came as a teen and lived undocumented for decades. Klein was born in Canada and became a naturalized US citizen nearly two decades ago. They married last year in Los Angeles.
'We received a small amount of money for our wedding,' Klein said. 'We planned to use it to start Alfredo's immigration process.' After Trump won, though, Klein was the first to have second thoughts.
'I didn't like Trump in his first term, and then when he got away with 34 felonies and was elected again as the president, I just was like, well, come on! I mean, he's going to do any and everything he wants to do. No one's holding him accountable for anything, so I'm not sitting around.'
Linares – as well as most of their family and friends – thought Klein was overreacting. The couple met with three immigration attorneys. Though he married a legal US citizen, Linares crossed the border as a teen illegally. Attempting to rectify his status would be expensive and take untold years of waiting – with no guarantee of a path to legal residency or citizenship. Furthermore, beginning the legal process to adjust his status would put him on the government's radar and may have even increased his risk for deportation.
In fact, immigration court has become a dragnet of sorts. People lawfully going through the process of becoming a citizen have been showing up for mandatory court dates and getting arrested by Ice officers outside the courtrooms.
Klein was eventually able to persuade Linares that they should take their small nest egg and leave while they still could.
They created a video about their departure to Mexico that was equal parts love story and epic adventure. 'Apparently our video went really, really viral,' said Klein, who kept busy as a freelance television producer until a massive industry slowdown a couple of years ago. Friends started contacting them and saying influencers were reposting their video. Major media outlets soon amplified the newlyweds' saga.
Klein and Linares now dream of opening a restaurant together in Mexico. They say they don't think of their situation as self-deportation but rather 'voluntary departure' – the government didn't force them out or pay them to leave, they made the decision themselves.
Filindra also takes issue with the phrase 'self-deportation', and warns against the rebranding of an old phenomenon known as return migration.
'Return migration has always been a phenomenon,' she says. Filindra points out that migration levels between the US and Mexico are 'practically zero' because so many people eventually go back home to Mexico, so the numbers of those arriving and those going back all but even out. According to the Pew Research Center, an estimated 870,000 Mexican migrants came to the US between 2013 and 2018, while an estimated 710,000 left the US for Mexico during that period. During the decade prior, however, more migrants left the US for Mexico than came here.
'The same was true in the 20th century with European migrants who often spent 20 or 30 years here, made enough money to retire and then went back home,' says Filindra.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
But this isn't exactly self-deportation, and the phrase itself has a problematic history. Though now being used in serious policy discussions, it was created as a joke by comedians Lalo Alcaraz and Esteban Zul in the early 90s. The duo posed as conservative Latinos supporting Hispanics Against a Liberal Takeover (Halto). They even invented a militant self-deportationist and sent fake press releases to media outlets promoting satirical self-deportation centers. In 2012 Mitt Romney, seemingly unaware of – or perhaps unbothered by – the comedic roots of the term, started using 'self-deportation' during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency.
Now the US Department of Homeland Security has latched on to the term. In May, the DHS claimed that 64 people took a government-funded flight to Colombia and Honduras as part of its new program encouraging undocumented immigrants to 'self-deport'.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is overseeing the program, which it calls 'assisted voluntary return' (AVR). Undocumented people can apply for AVR using the CBP Home app. Though the details remain murky, applicants supposedly receive a $1,000 stipend and travel assistance home.
However, according to a source familiar with the program who requested anonymity, approximately 1,000 individuals have been referred by the US government to the IOM through the AVR program, but to date agency has facilitated the departure of 'only a few' people.
Immigration experts say this also squares with what they are seeing.
'A thousand dollars is chump change when it comes to giving up a life in the United States,' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at American Immigration Council. 'The majority of undocumented immigrants have been here for more than 15 years. They have a job. Many have family here, some own property. Some run their own businesses.'
Furthermore, many immigrants are here because of dire situations and life-threatening conditions in their home countries. They have nowhere to return to. Immigration attorneys also warn that because the Trump administration hasn't been transparent, too little is known about the program to trust it. In fact, an additional directive from the administration on 9 June announced that the DHS would 'forgive failure to depart fines for illegal aliens who self-deport through the CBP Home app' – though most people would have no idea that fines are levied or how much those fines are.
Even with the administration's recent Ice raids and the supposed sweetening of the self-deportation deal, Filindra still says most migrants will still not just leave. 'What is more likely is that people who have a non-permanent status and need to visit immigration offices to extend their status, or those who have hearings, will not go out of fear of being arrested and deported.'
And she says we should all hope that the administration's obsession with all types of deportation is a flop. If too many immigrants are forced, threatened or incentivized to leave, industries from agriculture to healthcare will take a huge hit.
'Economically, this could be devastating for the US,' said Filindra.
Linares and Klein also warn that while they believe they made the right decision, leaving home is rough.
Linares describes it as a roller coaster. 'The people have embraced us in Mexico, but it's also been a challenge to figure out how things work here.' He's still trying to get his Mexican driver's license and passport. And he misses his LA friends, co-workers and even Griffith Park, his favorite place to hike with his dog. 'It was 20 years of my life there that I dedicated to building something. It's gone.'
After going public with her story, Klein expected to hear from many undocumented people or mixed-status families choosing, or at least considering, leaving the US on their own terms – but so far, she hasn't.
'I don't think a lot of undocumented people are leaving right now,' she says. 'But if something doesn't change – like if Trump isn't put into check very soon – I think you will see a lot more people abandoning the US in 2026.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president

The Guardian

time32 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president

Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands
ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands

Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending. 'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.

Beautiful, isolated and expensive: US expats on life in New Zealand
Beautiful, isolated and expensive: US expats on life in New Zealand

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Beautiful, isolated and expensive: US expats on life in New Zealand

Californian Larry Keim has learned a thing or two in his 20 years living in New Zealand: good dill pickles are hard to come by, understanding kiwi slang will get you far, and if you think you're going to get rich, forget it, 'that ain't gonna happen'. 'But [New Zealand] is rich in so many other things that, at the end of the day, matter more.' For Americans looking to escape political division in the US or simply wishing for a slower pace of life, New Zealand is often considered an enticing alternative. Political crises and administration changes in the US regularly ignite waves of American interest in New Zealand – visits to immigration websites skyrocket, property searches soar and online forums fill up with urgent questions about what life is like in the island nation. Billionaires have also looked to use New Zealand as a 'bolthole' far away from the threat of societal turmoil. Most recently, the relaxing of rules for New Zealand's so-called 'golden visas' to attract wealthy investors has seen a surge in applications from the US, including plenty – according to immigration consultants – driven by a desire to escape president Donald Trump's administration. So what advice would recent US migrants offer to their compatriots? Some themes emerged: relish the free healthcare, embrace the work culture and natural beauty but brace for high living costs and feelings of isolation. Sarah Parlow did not arrive on a 'golden visa' but deliberately moved to New Zealand a week before Trump's inauguration in January. 'When I saw the Republican party captured the House, the Senate and the presidency on election night, I just knew it would be disastrous for women's rights, LGBT rights, and the American people in general,' Parlow says. 'I just really wanted to be somewhere else for a while.' The Auckland-based nurse and life coach says it has been an easy landing. 'It's been a place where I feel I can recalibrate'. Stats NZ estimates 1,388 Americans migrated to New Zealand in the three months to the end of February, a jump of 1,127 on the same period a year earlier – 537 arrived in February alone, which is believed to be one of the highest monthly totals from the US on record. However, Amy Armstrong, who moved to New Zealand with her husband, Miles Nolte, and son Beck in 2022, has a warning. 'You should feel pulled to be here,' she said, 'not just pushed to get away from [the US].' 'I think it's really easy coming from a place of feeling desperate in the United States right now, to assume that if you can get to New Zealand, it's this golden parachute,' Nolte says, cautioning that not everything in New Zealand comes easy. The couple arrived in New Zealand after Armstrong was awarded an Edmund Hillary Fellowship and they have just gained residency. Their move was partly motivated by the US's political climate but mostly driven by a thirst for adventure and love of the outdoors. In this respect, the country has been generous – the wild spaces are beautiful and accessible and there is a real sense of 'community-mindedness', Armstrong says. But there have been shocks. The housing can be cold and getting a job is often about who you know, as much as what you know. 'The reality is, most people get jobs [here] based on knowing somebody,' says Nolte – an experienced writer, producer, hunter and fisher. 'I have been a little shocked at how cloistered the market … and the connections have been.' For Wellington-based video editor Sam, who wished to use only his first name, the workplace culture was a surprising discovery – one he relishes for the lengthy holiday periods and better work-life balance but which also required steep learning curves. 'In New Zealand, the relationships come first … if you're in a position of leadership, you have to develop that relationship or it won't work out,' says Sam. Sam and his wife moved to New Zealand in 2016 after falling in love with its natural beauty three years earlier. He is particularly struck by how access to free healthcare 'gives you more freedom and latitude to try new things'. 'That made me realise, as an American, how much of your life and the decisions you make are tied to your ability to get healthcare,' Sam said. Some Americans warned would-be migrants that the cost of living is high in New Zealand compared with the US, and said they had sometimes struggled to form friendships with locals. Meanwhile, the distance between New Zealand and the US can lead to loneliness. 'Sometimes it can feel very isolating [if] you're just here on your own and your family's 3,000 miles away,' says Monique, who wished to give only her first name, and who moved to New Zealand in 2006. Yet, not one regretted their choice to move, nor had any pressing desire to return to the US. 'I have a life here that I wouldn't be able to have in California – I can afford to keep myself healthy [and] don't have to pay for my prescriptions,' says Debbie, a retiree who has called New Zealand home since 2005. 'New Zealand is a beautiful country and I am proud to be part of it.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store