Trump's Tough Immigration Talk Comes With a High Price Tag
Are Americans prepared to spend a trillion dollars to deport undocumented migrants?

With the endorsement of a prominent Republican U.S. senator who was formerly critical of Donald Trump's immigration hawkishness, the Republican party seems wedded this year to a scheme for mass deportation of undocumented migrants. As it embraces the draconian policy, the GOP also attaches itself to the huge price tag inevitably associated with expelling millions of people from the country.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Turnaround on Immigration
"If reelected, Donald Trump has said he's willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military to deport the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country," Kristen Welker asked of Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) on NBC News's Meet the Press. "It would be the largest deportation operation in American history. Do you support that plan?"
"Yes, we are going to have to do something," responded Rubio after arguing that the number of undocumented migrants is much higher. "Unfortunately, we're going to have to do something dramatic to remove people from this country that are here illegally, especially people we know nothing about."
A son of Cuban immigrants and, at one time, strongly critical of Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship and otherwise restrict immigration, Rubio's turnaround matches the direction of his party, which takes a hard line on the issue. But if Trump plans "the largest deportation operation in American history"—his own words, adopted by Welker—we can assume that such a big-government scheme will come with matching costs. That's exactly what number crunchers predict.
A Big Price Tag
"The costs of the former president's plan to deport the more than 14 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. today could easily reach more than $1 trillion over 10 years, before taking into account the labor costs necessary for such a project or the unforeseen consequences of reducing the labor supply by such drastic amounts over a short period of time," MarketWatch's Chris Matthews reported this week of the results of a Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) analysis.
Trump's plan is still taking shape, though the former and perhaps future president has proposed using both the military and local law enforcement to eject migrants in this country illegally. If that policy was put into effect, "the removal of one million immigrants would cost the federal government between $40 billion and $50 billion over 10 years, and up to $100 billion if those immigrants were higher-paid workers," Matthews wrote of PWBM's finding.
Matthews notes that immigration hawks like Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), predict as many as one million deportations per year under tough enforcement. That's quite a reach, considering that deportations peaked at an average of 383,307 per year under former President Barack Obama. A dramatically higher target means rapidly accumulating costs, with the trillion-dollar price potentially reached after a decade.
PWBM's estimate, it should be noted, comes in high relative to some other sources that still name a staggering price for deportation. In 2015, the Center for American Progress, which opposes restrictive immigration policy, calculated that "a mass deportation strategy would cost an average of $10,070 per person, for a total of $114 billion to remove 11.3 million people." Adjusted for Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation figures, that's roughly $153 billion in 2024 dollars.
CIS, which takes a hard line on immigration, used a slightly higher per-migrant cost for its estimate, resulting in a total "cost of deportation of $124.1 billion" for 11.43 million undocumented migrants based on 2016 numbers. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $164 billion now.
The free-market American Action Forum (AAF) predicted in 2015 the federal government would "need to spend $100 billion to $300 billion arresting and removing all undocumented immigrants residing in the country." That's $134 billion to $402 billion now. But AAF warned that border enforcement to prevent further influx of undocumented migrants would cost an additional $315 billion ($422 billion in 2024).
CIS offsets the price of deporting millions of people by comparing it to what the organization claims is a "total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion" for the population of undocumented immigrants. But as MarketWatch observes, most experts disagree that undocumented migrants constitute a net drain – they believe that, on balance, they add to the country's economy.
The Economy Also Takes a Hit
"Under current law, unauthorized workers…generally do not qualify for federal benefits," PWBM economists point in a separate analysis. They add that "more deportations, though, leads to less economic growth." As a result, according to PWBM, with the implementation of restrictive policies, "GDP in 2050 will be four percent lower relative to no additional deportations."
AAF predicted that with deportations, "the labor force would shrink by 6.4 percent and, as a result, in 20 years the U.S. GDP would be almost 6 percent lower than it would be without fully enforcing current law."
In 2017, the Center for Migrant Studies cautioned that with a mass deportation program, "gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by 1.4 percent in the first year, and cumulative GDP would be reduced by $4.7 trillion over 10 years."
Obviously, there's a range of costs projected for a policy shift to mass deportations of undocumented migrants. That's because it has never been tried on the scale envisioned by Trump and his supporters. In fact, if Rubio is correct that the real number of people in the country in defiance of the law is "upwards of 20, 25, maybe 30 million," deportations will have to be that much more aggressive, with an even higher price tag to match.
Americans May Regret the Cost of Immigration Enforcement
That said, Americans consistently name immigration as a leading concern, topping other issues for three months running as of April, according to Gallup. Polling gives Trump the edge on the issue nationally and in key battleground states.
"Trump's policies are described as putting the interests of current U.S. citizens ahead of the interests of recent immigrants, whereas many Arizonans say Mr. Biden's policies don't," finds CBS News/YouGov.
Still, if Trump and company want to own the issue, the costs associated with it also belong to them. At a time when the federal government is broke, up to a trillion dollars in extra expense may be a hard sell.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Are Americans prepared to spend a trillion dollars to deport undocumented migrants?"
Yes.
Still a savings over what they cost us. A large savings.
Next question.
Agreed. Better than giving to the fucking Ukraine.
Ukraine chose to sign on the same dotted line as Dick Nixon (R), sacrificing the right to keep and bear arms to appease a communist dictatorship. Ukraine has as much chance of winning as Japan did in 1945. Japan had an actual Manhattan project going, complete with uranium separators run by physicists. It was too little, too late. Japan was lucky to have These States to surrender to while the Reds overran Manchuoko and China proper.
> Remove the welfare state entirely, then who cares?
Precisely. If the choice is between a welfare state and liberty, we must side with liberty. Moreover, the idea that immigrants get welfare is mostly a lie. Immigrants aren't getting welfare via the federal government or states. *Some* county governments might be, but all this rhetoric is not about counties. Still the perception is there that immigrants get welfare. They don't.
But if the concern is that they get welfare, the simplest solution is to just not give them welfare. Bam. Solved.
Welfare is just an excuse for xenophobes to pretend they aren't xenophobes.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrants-public-benefits-primer
“Welfare is just an excuse for xenophobes to pretend they aren’t xenophobes”
No, accusations of xenophobia are designed to deflect legitimate criticism and condemnation of open borders bullshit. Just like how you and your fellow travelers constantly race bait.
As usual, you’re full of shit.
You are right. “We can’t have open borders until we get rid of the welfare state.” That’s not how liberty works. Should we ban the purchase of firearms until we stop mass shootings and violent crime in the inner cities? No.
Should we allow the Mexican crime cartels to openly sell firearms and ammunition in our dangerous neighborhoods?
"But as MarketWatch observes, most experts disagree that undocumented migrants constitute a net drain – they believe that, on balance, they add to the country's economy."
If that's correct, will you change your analysis?
Reason is getting increasingly soft and dithery on the subject of the zero-cost proposition argument as more and more places literally pay illegal immigrants to come here and sit.
I wonder if the opposite were true. If the sanctuary cities turn out to be right, that illegal immigrants actually ARE a net drain to their economy, will Reason change their analysis?
Needed to spend those trillions Trump/Biden authorized for Covid on something. I'd have hoped Americans would be pissed off about that but Trump v Biden 2.0 says otherwise.
Reason is following the same path CATO took. Deny all costs.
Oddly this no cost open borders advocacy is most pushed by marcist groups and WEF. It is not based in libertarian principles. If it was they would discuss the costs and welfare system.
But illegal aliens can't get welfare! Or so I'm told.
Well despite the evidence, the group analyzing it has bad intentions so we can ignore the actual data. Ask sarc and Jeff.
They aren’t eligible for federal welfare but they are eligible for state aid. They wouldn’t need the aid if they were given work permits by said state.
But somehow most of the blame for this mess is always put on the migrants. I wonder why!
Illegal immigrants are “draining” their economy because Democrats are owned by labor unions and the unions don’t want job competition for their workers. So what happens? The Dems don’t give the migrants work permits and force them to live as wardens of the state. Don’t confuse the consequences of terrible government policy with free market realities.
"Experts believe".
Where have I heard that before?
"Ancient alien experts theorize that [insert off-the-wall "theory"]."
How are they ‘experts’? And why should I believe them when this is part of their agenda?
If the Biden Administration has shown us anything, it’s that the government is always prepared to go into the red for its campaign promises.
Except there is nothing to suggest that immigrants are a cost. All data shows they improve the economy and are a net asset.
Bullshit. Go into any ER in any southern border state.
Mayor Adams, the folks on Martha’s Vineyard, mayors of Denver, Chicago, Houston, LA, … might have a different perspective.
Biden has requested $1.4 billion from Congress to help state and local governments provide shelter and services for migrants, after earlier pleas from Democratic mayors and governors.
Johnston and the other mayors say in their letter that more is needed, and they are asking for $5 billion.
“While we are greatly appreciative of the additional federal funding proposed, our city budgets and local taxpayers continue to bear the brunt of this ongoing federal crisis,” the letter says. “Cities have historically absorbed and integrated new migrants with success.”
Denver is spending $2 million a week on sheltering migrants. New York has surpassed a total of $1.7 billion and Chicago has spent $320 million, according to the letter.
[I think this is from the jeff-approved news source: https://apnews.com/article/migrants-big-cities-biden-democratic-mayors-border-f498da66af8fb0ff8df653969f3f7a7a%5D
Over the long term, yes. Especially if you count their children who are much more likely to start a business than regular Americans.
Short term, not so much.
More lies and bald assertions. You've provided zero evidence of this. And continuous unchecked migration will always have the short term costs you seem to finally be admitting to.
Youre also again apparently mixing those coming on investment visas legally with low skilled illegal immigration.
Open borders is about a “land back” leftist movement. Sound a bit sensational?, check out Robbie’s leftist parters on The Hill Rising, Jessica Burbank and Brianna Joy on “land back”. This Hamas/leftist movement are filled with real Jim Jones cult true believers.
On the same topic, “LAND” Ireland, Norway and Spain have recognized a Hamas state. Here is the terrorist organization/government statement:
“The Times of Israel reported that Hamas stated: “We consider this an important step towards affirming our right to our land,” adding that it continued to call “on countries around the world to recognize our legitimate national rights.”
“Open borders” is a strawman used by anti-immigration asshats who think debate means attacking the other person with false dichotomies.
That too. Very few people are actually advocating for completely open borders.
Yet they get flakey about pushing back when something very close to open borders has been going down for years now.
I was promised “immigration reform” by Cato, Reason, etc for a couple decades now. That is not what’s happening and yet they defend it over and over again.
Uh, it’s not the authors at Reason and Cato’s fault Republicans have blocked immigration reform so that there is chaos at the border that they campaign on.
It is possible for people to reach the same conclusion for different reasons. Yes, I'm sure that some people want open borders for the reasons you state. But those are not the only reasons one might believe that open borders are good. There is definitely also a conflict between purist libertarians and those with a more pragmatic bent.
Zionists busting in to crash our party with a false equivalence fig leaf.
Explain the connection between Zionism and meaningful immigration reform?
There is plenty to suggest it. Such as the actual fucking data.
"Except there is nothing to suggest that immigrants are a cost. All data shows they improve the economy and are a net asset."
If you ignore all expenses, yup, total positives.
I've seen figures showing well over $100B a year in expenses.
If they are a net asset, you would be able to find a locale anxious to welcome more in. They do not seem to exist.
There is everything that proves they are a net cost. Your statement is pure open borders idiocy. This is typical of you.
Are Americans prepared to spend a trillion dollars to deport undocumented migrants?
We are currently overspending by a trillion dollars every 100 days .
I agree with damikesc.
The great majority of Americans would gladly pay to be rid of the millions of illegal alien invaders.
Remove the welfare state entirely, then who cares?
Meantime:
Put enforcement efforts into preventing illegal aliens from obtaining welfare benefits (sure, sure, they don't get any...right).
Put enforcement efforts into deterring employers from employing illegal aliens.
When an illegal alien is arrested for some other crime, deportation has to be part of any sentence.
Rounding up 30M illegals and deporting them is pretty unfeasible (one might argue that was part of Biden's plan), but make it hard for an illegal alien to be here and some of them will self-deport.
but make it hard for an illegal alien to be here and some of them will self-deport.
Or we could agree to disagree and pay them to be here.
Immigrants don't get welfare and they do pay taxes. What assistance they get is often related to children born here and who are American citizens, remember the 14th Amendment.
Do you share the same sources as Sarc?
They obviously consume the same far leftwing narratives. But I don’t think Mod consumes the many gallons of alcohol that Sarc does on a weekly basis.
Are you lying, or really that ignorant?
He is that ignorant, willfully. Like all leftists, he believes what his Marxist masters order him to think.
Loudmouths who have never read a line of immigration law are quick to suggest exactly what had been happening for years as "the" new solution. Aliens without visas are routinely picked up for wife-beating, drunk or unlicensed driving, fender-benders, kinda-sorta smelling like weed and so forth. They are picked over by lawyers then deported. What causes these wretches to migrate North is the Southward movement of DEA infiltrators and hidden persuaders corrupting their governments into asset-forfeiture looting because plant leaves. End prohibition and the problem ends.
Are Americans prepared to spend a trillion dollars to deport undocumented migrants?
If it saves a hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities, then yes.
I thought this was a moral argument and there are no illegal people. Is America prepared to spend [checks BJS budget notes] $81B a year to keep murderers, rapists, violent thieves, pot smokers, and gun-toting rappers in jail?
Seems kinda odd that we can build buildings and keep people locked in cages to the tune of $33K per person per annum (closer to $70K in places like CA and NY) but shipping them out at $10K per person per annum is completely unfeasible. If only there were some *other* sorts of tradeoff that could be made besides just immigration vs. welfare. But, I guess the budget numbers are the budget numbers and that's how morality is dictated to us.
The costs to deport sky rocket when you pay NGOs and legal advocate groups with taxpayer money to fight the deportation.
One of the flaws of our legal system is giving people the right to a defense.
Is English your second language?
Right to defense doesn't include the right for paid council. Ask most citizen defendants.
Actually, it does. (For criminal charges, at least.)
That doesn't mean you'll get competent legal counsel, or one that isn't enormously overworked and inexperienced, though.
Illegals don’t have the same protections as citizens. Thats just more of your open borders bullshit.
You are nothing but a far left democrat shill.
over 10 years
with the trillion-dollar price potentially reached after a decade
Nice trick you got there assuming massive exporting of illegal immigrants is an endless pursuit like spraying weeds.
"We keep exporting them but they just keep growing." :).
Maybe enforcing the border (as the Union of States is suppose to do) and one or two years ($1T/10/yr=$100B = $200B TOTAL) should be the non-deceptive amount.
So the country has been flooded with illegal immigrants, seemingly deliberately, in numbers which are straining the national infrastructure to absorb (which is why left leaning urban politicians are screaming like stuck pigs about the problems it is causing in their areas). Now, we are getting from those people who abused and broke the immigration enforcement system, that it would cost too much to fix the problem.
How convenient.
The ledger may balance due to not needing to spend to facilitate them being here.
Americans May Regret the Cost of Immigration Enforcement
When you need an economist to make your moral argument...
C'mon Reason, you're missing the point. First the foreigners stole our factories, now they're stealing our jobs. This isn't economics, it's revenge.
They are making me LOOK BAD by working harder than I do! So we must first prohibit them from working here on our Magic Soil, and then PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH them for working too hard and too much (AKA, working at ALL) for willing employers! Then punish them some MORE if they accept handouts!
Or maybe the 51% on 'armed-theft' welfare and the 75% voting for more 'armed-theft' *is* the issue.
But hey; don't let the 'armed-theft' problem get in your way. /s
And sarc refuses to admit costs yet again because he is now a retarded leftist who has more in common with Marxists. Just ignore costs and there are no costs! And a problem so bad it bankrupted even Maines welfare system.
No, no, Sarc is totally not a leftist because he says so while simultaneously being in lockstep with far left democrats and reflexively defending them no matter what.
Herbert Hoover paid the League of Nations to force Germany to cut down on the drugs it exported to pay reparations to our former Associates. They were NOT our "allies." This so irritated Merck, Farben et alii that they funneled money to Hitler's NSDAP as of 13JUL1931, and less than two years later he was in charge and pulling Germany out of the League. Concentration camps were fully functioning in 1933. There is excellent reason to conclude that just as prohibition wrecked world economies, it also kindled two World Wars. No Kleptocracy party will ever admit this.
NO costs could EVER be too high for us to satisfy our raging hate-boners, so PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH twatever scapegoats that we can all agree on!
If [WE] can't invade, steal and trespass it's because of hate-boners. /s
"The costs of the former president's plan to deport the more than 14 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. today could easily reach more than $1 trillion over 10 years, before taking into account the labor costs necessary for such a project or the unforeseen consequences of reducing the labor supply by such drastic amounts over a short period of time," MarketWatch's Chris Matthews reported this week of the results of a Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) analysis.
All models are wrong, some are useful. I doubt this model is useful.
On top of that the country spent 150B on illegal immigrants for welfare, housing, and government funded lawyers. This doesn't include criminal trial costs, costs to infrastructure, inflationary costs like rent, or judicial costs. That's 1.5T over 10 years.
So even in your worst case Penn Wharton model that is a savings of 500B.
Their cost projection is an obvious lie, another attempt to justify the Democrat’s treasonous open borders amnesty efforts.
Many years ago, Newt Gingerich axed his chance on for the Presidency when asked about deporting immigrants. Newt, who was anti-immigrant, granted that no he would not expel a grandmother who had been here for 20 years. The monetary and social cost for such mass deportations is enormous. Like the promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, this deportation idea is pure fantasy.
People break-in to your house so why even try to stop them. /s
It would be expensive to have authorities investigate that activity and prosecute any apprehended.
Murders still happen, so why make murder illegal?
Sure we saw the border surge after Biden invited them in during the DNC debates. But let's ignore that.
Garland kind of leans one way regarding this.
Like the promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, this deportation idea is pure fantasy.
The expanded police powers will not be a fantasy.
You just spent last night defending the raid on Mar a Lago. Lol.
There is a passive system that has been utilized for decades dumbass.
Newt is anti illegal. Not anti immigrant. As usual you’re a liar.
“A dramatically higher target means rapidly accumulating costs, with the trillion-dollar price potentially reached after a decade.”
Ever heard of the economy of scale? Once the program was large and up and running, it would cost less and less per person deported.
Anyway, you can’t just look at the immediate monetary value, you have to look at long term. This is like the govt spending $100,000 to arrest, prosecute, and house a criminal who stole $1000. It’s an investment to deter future thefts so it saves money in the long run.
Imagine a world where 95% of illegal aliens, if given amnesty and a chance to vote, would vote for Trump.
Now imagine the response from the left of that world to the crisis.
Imagine the overwhelming newfound support for immigrants from Trump supporters. You can't? Me neither.
Before the Mises Anschluss illegal aliens might have been persuaded to distribute LP doorhangers and persuade relatives to vote Libertarian. They might have even scraped together a little cash for party coffers. Nobody else is bringing in votes or dollars... the record shows quite the opposite. Maybe copying Hitler economics was less than wise.
His voters are the ones paying taxes to support them which you ignore.
Whose voters enjoy lower costs for fresh produce and meat grown or raised in the U.S.A. because of undocumented laborers that will take lower pay than any American would? Lower costs for housing because of all of the undocumented workers in the construction industry?
These "immigrants" don't eat or have homes causing increased demand and thus higher prices? Their children don't attend public schools and increase the need for more public schools and thus more taxes? Of course they also increase the supply of labor thus lowering wages ( mainly among low income American citizens).
Illegals aren’t immigrants, you lying far left drunk.
They wouldn't just build a wall, they would set fire to the border to make sure nothing could cross.
Laken Riley couldn't be reached for comment.
To deflect narrative away from the reenslavement of pregnant women, God's Own Prohibitionists and the Alternative für Germany have both copied and updated a plank from Hitler's 1920 platform: "8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich immediately." If it works, Latin America will continue to be impoverished by foreign prohibition agents, and White Supremacists can again beat their chests in renewed eugenic wars against "Race Suicide" like it was 1905 all over again.
It always comes down to Marxist sociology professors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
Open borders is the revolution to overwhelm and collapse.
Claim: Every semi-realistic proposal for mass deportation of illegal immigrants will result in the deprivation of liberty of citizens and/or legal residents.
Prove me wrong (if you can).
Deprivation of liberty is a small sacrifice to make if it means getting revenge on the filthy foreigners for stealing our factories, jobs and welfare.
It will be just like Covid all over again?
Prove me wrong (if you can).
That’s not how this works. Present your evidence that you’re right. Then we might bother to refute it. Or not.
The biggest obstacle to rounding up illegals is the Constitution. Especially the fourth and fifth amendments. Those protections would have to go to effectively identify and deport 11 million people.
You leftists have created a lot of work with your treason, yes.
You’re actually correct. He should have to present evidence that government agents responsible for protecting the border have violated the rights of U.S. citizens in the past. That would make it a reasonable inference that stepping up enforcement by an order of magnitude would be likely to lead to a similar increase in civil rights violations.
But Jeffy has argued in the past that protecting the border is itself a violation of rights.
He’s also argued that known racists and pedophiles from foreign countries have every right to enter the US at will. But then, he consistently argues in favor of policies that protect sexual predators, especially pedophiles. Including policy that gives them cover for grooming small children.
As-if the 'armed-theft' of yearly income tax filings wasn't all the loss of the liberty of citizens that would be required. Your "prove me wrong" stance lives in a fantasy of only illegal immigrants having the liberty to dodge yearly tax theft. Nobody else has that liberty.
It’s already proven. Your lies to the contrary are discredited bullshit.
Maybe not, but that price tag is bullshit.
Self-deportation is very real. Remove the freebies and punish the people that employ illegal aliens and many of these folks will leave. The biggest challenge is the criminal Venezuelans, because their country does not want their prison population back. We'll have to get creative with those people.
We have the same problem with China—they won't take their people back. Maybe we can just load them onto barges, then tow them into the countries' territorial waters and leave them.
Yes.
But it doesn't have to be additional spending. We can simply re-allocate what we're already (mis)spending.
Cut off all social welfare of any kind, eliminate the public education system, and eliminate any and all spending that's related to climate change or social justice causes.
There. I just afforded the costs of deportation. A hundred times over. We can use what's leftover to rebuild the military.
^THIS. Funny how only 13% of spending goes for Constitutional Enumerated powers and the other 87% goes to treasonous Nazi-Empire BS. A *real* USA (Constitutional) would be easy to afford.
Gov Guns don't make sh*t.... Their only human asset is to ensure Liberty and Justice for all with a National Defense capable of defending the nation against Nazi-Voters and 'armed-theft' criminals. Funny how most the government today is the criminal.
How can anyone who professes to be for “small government” support spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money to enforce laws that penalize people for nonviolent behavior?
As far as “we can’t afford them goes”, that’s because of the existence of the welfare state and because political leaders in sanctuary cities won’t give them work permits which forces them to pay for their incarceration.
The obvious solution is decriminalizing our arbitrary and draconian immigration laws so that foreigners can come in here more efficiently. Combine that with getting rid of the welfare state and we wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever.
Yeah, you work on that. In the meantime, secure borders are essential to our national survival.
How can anyone who professes to be for “small government” support spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money to enforce laws that penalize people for nonviolent behavior?
Just because it's nonviolent doesn't mean it's not criminal. And you know darn well that if they walked into your home and slept in your bed, you'd want them forcibly removed and "penalized" for it regardless of how "non-violent" they are.