Mass Expropriation of Immigrant and 'Enabler' Property to Fund Deportations

Source: Sam Rhodes. "Americans Must Seize US Assets Foreigners Are Sending Abroad." September 1, 2026. thefederalist.com

The Gist

The author argues that America should seize the money and property of illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them, using historical examples like Revolutionary War property seizures from Loyalists as justification. He claims this stolen wealth could pay for deportations and then be redistributed to struggling young Americans.

Conclusion

The United States should implement a policy of mass property confiscation—targeting illegal immigrants and those who employ or profit from illegal immigration—using the seized assets and heavily taxed remittances to fund deportation efforts and redistribute wealth to American citizens.

Premises

  1. American history provides precedent for expropriating the property of groups deemed disloyal or hostile to the nation, such as Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and Confederates during the Civil War.
  2. Illegal immigrants have acquired wealth and resources 'illegitimately' as a result of what the author terms an 'invasion,' and deportation alone does not provide restitution to harmed Americans.
  3. Employers, landlords, and other enablers of illegal immigration constitute a 'traitor class' that profits at the expense of ordinary American citizens.
  4. Taxing remittances at 50% could generate enough revenue (based on $200 billion sent in 2021) to cover the estimated $315 billion cost of mass deportation within a few years.
  5. Escalating penalties—including license revocation and civil/personal asset forfeiture—would deter businesses from employing illegal immigrants.
  6. Young Americans currently face bleak economic prospects (e.g., inability to achieve the 'American Dream'), and redistributing seized wealth could improve their circumstances.
  7. Thomas Jefferson's principle that necessity and self-preservation can justify actions beyond strict legal limits supports extralegal expropriation when national security is at stake.

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai