According to numerous reports, there has been increasing pressure on President Trump from many quarters to provide some forms of carveouts to illegals working in various industries. In his public remarks, President Trump has gone back and forth on this issue, expressing, at the very least, openness to the idea.

Some people who say they support the Administration's immigration policy argue in favor of this idea, or at least that it wouldn't be so bad. Even with such carveouts, the Administration can still deport millions of illegals and cause millions more to self-deport. It might be an acceptable compromise to soften the short-term economic impact of mass deportations.

Here are the many reasons why we believe it's wrong.

1. The rule of law. In a very fundamental way, the 2024 election was about the rule of law. It was about voting against a system that practices lawfare against its political opponents. It was about voting against a system whereby employers illegally discriminate on the basis of race. It was about voting against online censorship. It was about voting for the idea that the elected chief executive of the Federal government should actually be in charge of the executive branch as provided for by the Constitution, and not thwarted by an unelected and unaccountable administrative state. It was about immigration, yes, immigration as such, but also immigration, and specifically the Biden border lawlessness, as a synecdoche for chaos in America and for the need for America to return to being a nation of laws. The Administration's immigration agenda is about more than just immigration as such, it is about demonstrating to the American people that they can, once again, have a government of laws. This is why fulfilling that promise entails standing on the very simple principle: if you're in the US illegally, you must go, period.

2. Sorry if your business model relies on illegal aliens. On one level, we want to have sympathy for employers of illegal aliens. They didn't create the system that made it so they had to do it to remain competitive. Famously, during the 2016 primary, Donald J. Trump responded to accusations that he'd hired illegal aliens at his resorts by saying that he had to because that was the way the system was set up, and he was running for President to change the system. Business owners face tremendous pressures, and this calls for some sympathy. But this was then. Last year, President Trump ran very clearly and very explicitly on the promise of mass deportations. The election was in November. We are now in July. Business owners who wake up now in a panic about how mass deportations threatens their business model should get less sympathy. It's one thing to say that adapting to the new reality is going to be difficult; it's another thing to refuse to try and then essentially dare the government to enforce the law. Today those business owners feel more like a Wall Street bank that seeks a bailout because it made very risky bets that blew up, but the reason it made those very risky bets is because it knew if they blew up they could seek a bailout. They were betting on the TACO trade. President Trump should show them he's no chicken.

3. The slippery slope is very dangerous. Let's say agriculture deserves a carveout. Why should agriculture get it but not hotels? Why hotels and not restaurants? If President Trump caves on one, it will be an order of magnitude harder for him to resist the pressure to cave on the next one. Every single business owner or interest that he talks to will suddenly think to himself "I should ask him for an immigration carveout" instead of thinking "There's no use bringing up immigration anyway, I should bring up this other topic instead." If only to make his future life easier, President Trump should stick to the simple rule of no carveouts.

4. Self-deportations. Given the astronomical size of the Bidenwave, the Administration's immigration policy cannot succeed without large numbers of self-deportations. And self-deportations are as much about perception as about reality. Which is why the Administration's messaging must be absolutely crystal clear and loud. Immigrants are in fact human beings, which means they are rational actors who respond to incentives. Any talk of carveouts changes the perception and creates a much greater incentive for them to try to hunker down and wait Trump out rather than self-deport.

5. Wages. The purpose of the Administration's immigration policy is not just to fix the disorders created by immigration itself, as important as that is. It's also to realign the American labor market to push wages up. As JD Vance expressed in his American Dynamism Summit speech, this is part of a comprehensive strategy where all the parts work together. Raising wages changes the tradeoff between labor and capital, and therefore it encourages more investment, especially into labor-saving technology. This, in turn, raises productivity and innovation. Which, in turn, raises wages, in a virtuous cycle. Immigration restriction is a crucial part of the Administration's economic agenda. There's also a very practical political aspect to this: not every region or locale in America is affected equally by illegal immigration; in some places the disorder and decline in quality of life is impossible to miss, but in others it's less apparent. Enforcing immigration law to the point where wages go up significantly is how the broad majority of Americans see an improvement in their day-to-day life from the Administration's immigration policy, and this creates a least strong majority in favor of a more restrictionist immigration consensus. Creating carveouts specifically for those illegal aliens who are currently employed in undercutting Americans' wages goes directly against that essential goal, and so doesn't just threaten the Administration's immigration agenda, but the entire economic agenda.