EXODUS: Miller Reveals 1 Million Self-Deportations Under New Border Crackdown

Paul Riverbank, 7/18/2025Biden's new border policy offers cash incentives, leading to claimed mass self-deportations.

Having covered immigration policy for over two decades, I've rarely seen such a dramatic shift in enforcement approach. The administration's dual strategy – combining strict penalties with financial incentives for voluntary departure – represents a fascinating departure from conventional wisdom in immigration control.

What's particularly striking about Miller's announcement isn't just the numbers – though they're remarkable if verified – but the underlying shift in policy philosophy. The introduction of the CBP Home App, offering $1,000 stipends for voluntary departures, reflects a pragmatic recognition that carrots sometimes work better than sticks in immigration enforcement.

Let's put this in perspective. Traditional deportation costs taxpayers around $17,121 per person, according to DHS figures. Simple math suggests the new approach could save billions – if it works as claimed. But here's where we need to pause and ask some hard questions.

Miller's appearance on Fox News highlighted both the potential and pitfalls of this new approach. While the financial logic seems sound, his rhetoric about consequences – including property seizure and incarceration – has sparked justified concern among civil rights advocates. I've seen similar tough talk backfire before, creating unnecessary fear without improving compliance.

The reported decrease in illegal border crossings deserves careful analysis. While correlation doesn't prove causation, early data suggests the policy might be having its intended effect. Yet we should remember that immigration patterns often reflect complex global factors beyond any single policy's influence.

One aspect that particularly interests me is the CBP Home App program. It's a novel use of technology in immigration enforcement, though we'll need more data to assess its long-term viability. The Chicago-to-Honduras case Miller cited offers an intriguing glimpse of how this might work in practice.

From where I sit, this policy represents a significant gamble. If successful, it could reshape immigration enforcement for years to come. But success will likely depend on implementation details that haven't yet been fully revealed or tested.

The debate will undoubtedly continue. Critics' concerns about fear-mongering deserve serious consideration, as do supporters' arguments about practical solutions to complex problems. What's clear is that we're watching a potentially transformative moment in American immigration policy unfold before our eyes.

The Biden administration's recent immigration enforcement strategy has yielded unexpected results, with Stephen Miller's claim of one million self-deportations raising both eyebrows and questions about the evolving landscape of U.S. immigration policy.Having covered immigration policy for over two decades, I've rarely seen such a dramatic shift in enforcement approach. The administration's dual strategy – combining strict penalties with financial incentives for voluntary departure – represents a fascinating departure from conventional wisdom in immigration control.What's particularly striking about Miller's announcement isn't just the numbers – though they're remarkable if verified – but the underlying shift in policy philosophy. The introduction of the CBP Home App, offering $1,000 stipends for voluntary departures, reflects a pragmatic recognition that carrots sometimes work better than sticks in immigration enforcement.Let's put this in perspective. Traditional deportation costs taxpayers around $17,121 per person, according to DHS figures. Simple math suggests the new approach could save billions – if it works as claimed. But here's where we need to pause and ask some hard questions.Miller's appearance on Fox News highlighted both the potential and pitfalls of this new approach. While the financial logic seems sound, his rhetoric about consequences – including property seizure and incarceration – has sparked justified concern among civil rights advocates. I've seen similar tough talk backfire before, creating unnecessary fear without improving compliance.The reported decrease in illegal border crossings deserves careful analysis. While correlation doesn't prove causation, early data suggests the policy might be having its intended effect. Yet we should remember that immigration patterns often reflect complex global factors beyond any single policy's influence.One aspect that particularly interests me is the CBP Home App program. It's a novel use of technology in immigration enforcement, though we'll need more data to assess its long-term viability. The Chicago-to-Honduras case Miller cited offers an intriguing glimpse of how this might work in practice.From where I sit, this policy represents a significant gamble. If successful, it could reshape immigration enforcement for years to come. But success will likely depend on implementation details that haven't yet been fully revealed or tested.The debate will undoubtedly continue. Critics' concerns about fear-mongering deserve serious consideration, as do supporters' arguments about practical solutions to complex problems. What's clear is that we're watching a potentially transformative moment in American immigration policy unfold before our eyes.