“Leave now or pay $998 a day”: Trump administration’s new 30-day immigration rule shocks migrants

In a dramatic escalation of immigration enforcement, the United States Department of Homeland Security has issued a new directive requiring all foreign nationals residing in the country without current legal status to either register with federal authorities or self-deport within 30 days. The mandate is part of a broader immigration crackdown championed by President Donald Trump‘s administration as it seeks to overhaul the country’s approach to undocumented migrants, streamline deportation procedures, and deter future illegal entry.

The policy, introduced under the banner of a newly intensified executive order aimed at “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” is being enforced with immediate effect. It applies to any non-citizen who has remained in the United States for more than 30 consecutive days without updated legal clearance—regardless of how or when they initially entered the country.

What does the 30-day registration mandate mean for undocumented migrants in the US?

Under this sweeping new immigration policy, undocumented foreign nationals are required to officially register with the Department of Homeland Security within 30 days. The federal government is framing the directive as a final opportunity for such individuals to avoid harsher penalties by choosing voluntary departure, often referred to as “self-deportation.” If they fail to register or leave voluntarily, they risk criminal prosecution, heavy fines, and deportation without appeal.

Penalties include an initial fine of $1,000 to $5,000 for failure to register, along with a separate provision under which those who declare their intention to self-deport but fail to leave within the grace period will be charged a punitive daily fine of $998. Jail terms are also possible, especially for those deemed “evaders” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The directive has also been accompanied by a series of DHS communications titled “Message to Illegal Aliens,” which explicitly advise foreign nationals without immigration clearance to “leave now while you still can.” The campaign includes radio and TV ads aired both in the United States and abroad, with messages translated into multiple languages to reach a broad audience.

Who is affected by the DHS directive—and who might be next?

While the policy appears aimed at undocumented immigrants, its reach is broader than previous enforcement efforts. Individuals on employment-based visas like H-1B who have lost jobs and not found new sponsorship, international students who fall out of status, and even dependents of lawful visa holders may fall into the scope of scrutiny.

The DHS has clarified that foreign nationals currently maintaining valid legal status are not immediately affected. However, the administration’s messaging warns that even minor infractions or administrative delays in visa renewal could place individuals at risk. Legal status holders are now expected to maintain updated documents and ensure they do not inadvertently fall into non-compliance.

What distinguishes this policy from prior enforcement mechanisms is its mandatory nature and limited discretionary enforcement. Immigration authorities are now required to refer non-compliant individuals to the Department of Justice for prosecution, bypassing prior internal review processes that allowed for case-by-case exceptions.

What prompted this policy shift—and how does it compare to past immigration enforcement strategies?

This policy is rooted in a wider strategic shift under President Trump’s immigration doctrine, which focuses on deterrence through rigid enforcement and punitive consequences. It reflects the administration’s longstanding view that leniency in prior immigration policy frameworks encouraged unauthorized residency.

The decision comes on the heels of significant criticism directed at prior programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and CBP One, which critics argue created legal ambiguity and incentivized long-term unauthorized stay. The administration now seeks to eliminate grey areas in enforcement by mandating proactive self-reporting and registration, essentially turning immigration monitoring into a national compliance audit.

Historically, the United States has alternated between enforcement-heavy and reform-minded immigration policies. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act under President Ronald Reagan included an amnesty provision. More recent policies under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama offered temporary relief and deferred action mechanisms. The Trump administration’s current posture, however, rejects these prior models in favor of compulsory enforcement without room for negotiated reprieve.

How does self-deportation work under the new rule—and what assistance is offered?

Self-deportation in this context involves a foreign national voluntarily notifying the government of their intent to leave the country and then coordinating with ICE or DHS to facilitate the process. Those who comply with the registration and exit requirements within the 30-day window will reportedly retain the right to reclaim earnings they legally accrued in the US, as long as they are not under criminal investigation.

In an unusual move, the federal government has also announced it will assist some individuals with subsidized flights to their countries of origin if they cannot afford travel expenses. This applies only to individuals who register within the grace period and show proof of financial hardship.

There is no guarantee of future reentry under any visa class for those who depart, but those who self-deport are unlikely to face permanent bans—unlike those who remain in violation of the order past the 30-day mark.

How are immigrant communities and legal experts responding?

The rollout of the policy has created a ripple of anxiety across immigrant communities in major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where large numbers of undocumented residents live and work. Legal aid groups have reported a surge in calls from migrants seeking clarity on whether they fall under the policy’s scope, and how to secure legal protections.

Immigration law experts have noted that the policy creates an unprecedented requirement for mass registration, which could strain administrative resources and result in procedural confusion. They have warned that without adequate legal infrastructure to process registrations, innocent individuals might be penalized due to bureaucratic delays.

Critics also argue that the policy may lead to racial profiling and could deter people from accessing essential services such as healthcare or education for fear of being flagged by immigration enforcement. They further contend that the punitive daily fines border on excessive and may contravene due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.

However, supporters of the policy say it is a necessary correction to decades of lax enforcement and a vital step toward reasserting national sovereignty and immigration control. They believe the program will incentivize voluntary compliance and discourage future illegal entry.

What are the long-term implications for US immigration policy?

The self-deportation mandate is part of a larger restructuring of immigration policy designed to shift the burden of compliance onto the migrant. It signals a move away from amnesty and administrative discretion toward a rules-based system that enforces strict timelines and accountability.

If widely implemented and sustained, the 30-day registration requirement could become a model for future immigration regimes. It may also influence legislative discussions in Congress, potentially reviving efforts to pass more comprehensive immigration reform—either to support this enforcement model or to counterbalance it with more humane provisions.

The aggressive stance is expected to have a chilling effect on future visa overstays and may alter the risk calculus for potential migrants considering unlawful entry. The administration appears committed to backing this policy with robust enforcement tools, including expanded data-sharing among federal agencies and closer coordination with international governments.

In the final analysis, the DHS directive marks one of the most significant shifts in immigration enforcement in modern American history. It places the onus squarely on undocumented individuals to act swiftly or face severe, long-lasting consequences. Whether it achieves its intended deterrence effect or triggers broader legal and social ramifications will depend on how rigorously it is implemented—and how the courts and public ultimately respond.