Mark Cuban backs cash incentives for immigrant self-deportation

Mark Cuban is urging the country to consider paying undocumented immigrants to leave the United States voluntarily, saying the approach would save taxpayer money and treat people more humanely than arrests and forced removals. “I got no problem with offering more money for self-deportation. Cheaper to taxpayers. The only humane option so far,” Cuban said this month, leaning into a debate that has quietly shifted inside Washington as costs for detention and court backlogs rise.

Cuban’s pitch centers on offering direct cash payments to people who choose to depart on their own, rather than expanding detention beds or launching large removal operations. He argues that a voluntary path with cash payments would reduce spending on detention, lawyers, and flights, while giving families time to prepare.

He also notes that while “illegal is illegal,” research shows undocumented immigrants work, pay taxes, and often give more to the economy than they receive in services — an argument meant to cool claims that all unauthorized workers are a drain.

How the proposal intersects with current federal policy

The idea isn’t just theoretical. In 2025, the Trump administration rolled out financial incentives for voluntary return — sometimes called self-deportation — as part of a broader push to shift away from large-scale arrests.

Key elements of that rollout:

• Adults who consent to depart have been offered $1,000 stipends, along with travel help and a stated chance to seek legal reentry later.
• Unaccompanied minors aged 14 and up have been offered $2,500 if they agree to return to their home countries.
• Officials say these offers exclude Mexican nationals and require approval by an immigration judge, with payments issued only after the person arrives safely back home.

To make the process easier, the Department of Homeland Security relaunched the CBP One app in March 2025 as “CBP Home,” a digital tool that lets people with final removal orders or revoked parole schedule their own flights and notify the government of their plans to leave. The government promotes this option as faster and less costly than detaining people for months. For background on the original app’s features, see the U.S. Customs and Border Protection page for CBP One.

The administration also paired incentives with penalties:

• Daily fines of up to $998 for people who ignore removal orders.
• Warnings that unpaid fines could lead to asset seizures.
• Messaging that leaving on their own could help migrants preserve a cleaner record than a forced removal.

Reactions from advocates

• Some advocates welcome an option that avoids raids, ankle monitors, and months in detention.
• Others worry that large cash offers might pressure people — especially teenagers — into choices they don’t fully grasp.
• A court-approved departure does not erase bars on returning. Under current law, time spent in the country without status can trigger three- or ten-year bans on coming back legally. That means even with a voluntary exit, many still face long waits before they can apply for a visa again.

Costs, ethics, and legal pitfalls

Cuban frames his proposal as both practical and humane, aligning with a growing focus on cost savings. Detention and courtroom processing are expensive, and voluntary departures with cash payments appear cheaper per case, especially if people arrange travel quickly. VisaVerge.com reports this shift mirrors a broader test inside immigration enforcement: spend less on detention and court time, and move more people through faster — ideally with less harm to families.

However, the legal path remains complicated:

• A voluntary departure does not wipe away past unlawful presence.
• The three- and ten-year bars still apply for many who overstayed or crossed the border without permission.
• Government statements suggesting self-deportation could help future legal entry require careful reading; leaving voluntarily may look better in an interview, but the legal bars still exist unless someone qualifies for a waiver.

Families weighing the $1,000 or $2,500 offers should consider:

• Will the stipend cover travel and restart costs back home?
• Will leaving help or hurt long-term plans?
• Is a waiver possible later?
• Are there safety risks in the home country that outweigh the stipend?

Real-world limits have also emerged. Despite ambitious targets, actual removals have fallen below public goals, showing a gap between plans and what field offices can accomplish. That gap matters for Cuban’s argument: if paid voluntary departures are cheaper and faster, will enough people accept the offer to meaningfully reduce costs and backlogs? Early numbers suggest many still prefer to fight their cases, especially if they fear harm back home or hope for relief in court.

State roles, economic context, and political dynamics

Cuban also commented on state roles, saying states should be free to spend local money as they wish on immigration-related services, citing California as an example. That stance hints at a patchwork future where some states fund legal help and community programs, while others back stricter measures or local removal efforts. For migrants, this could mean very different experiences depending on where they live, even under the same federal rules.

Economic points proponents highlight:

• Foreign-born residents own a large share of U.S. businesses; immigrants are estimated to own about 18% of companies nationwide.
• Immigrants create jobs, rent storefronts, pay sales and property taxes, and fill key roles in sectors from farm work to elder care.
• Cuban and allies argue any plan — even one that pays for self-deportation — should be honest about those gains and the need for more legal pathways for work and family.

Political tensions:

• Supporters of strict enforcement view cash payments as rewards for breaking the law.
• Progressive groups worry about coercion and the dangers of sending people back to unstable places.
• The White House under President Trump has used voluntary departure as a headline policy tool, pairing it with fines for noncompliance.
• President Biden’s allies have historically promoted legal reforms and case-by-case relief, but the debate has shifted as border numbers and costs rose.

Implications for families and vulnerable people

For families on the ground, the choices are deeply personal and high-stakes:

• A mother weighing a $1,000 stipend must decide if the money covers travel, restart costs, and children’s schooling.
• A 16-year-old offered $2,500 may have to decide whether to return alone to a country he barely knows.
• Lawyers urge people to seek counsel before agreeing to any self-deportation deal, to check for possible asylum claims, special visas, or family relief.
• They also stress the long-term impact of the three- and ten-year bars, which can block future plans for a decade or more.

Key takeaway: The policy experiment tests whether self-deportation with cash payments can lower costs and reduce harm while still enforcing the law. But critical questions remain about eligibility, safeguards, and whether departures are truly voluntary and safe.

For now, the policy experiment continues, with Mark Cuban pushing for bigger offers and a broader shift toward voluntary exits. Whether the country follows his lead will depend on budgets, court rulings, and how many people decide that a check and a one-way ticket are the best of hard choices.