New Government App Tells Undocumented Immigrants to Leave Voluntarily Now

The U.S. government has rolled out a sweeping campaign urging undocumented immigrants to leave the country voluntarily, leveraging a new mobile app and a multimillion-dollar advertising blitz. Announced on April 21, 2025, by the Department of Homeland Security, the initiative promotes the CBP Home app’s 'Intent to Depart' feature, which allows users to notify authorities of their plan to self-deport. The campaign, paired with broadcast and digital ads in multiple languages, aims to reach both those living in the U.S. without authorization and potential migrants abroad.

At the heart of the effort is a promise of leniency: those who comply may face fewer penalties, such as permanent bans on reentry, and could even be eligible for future legal return. Yet the messaging also carries a stern warning, with threats of daily fines up to $1,000, imprisonment, and forced deportation for those who remain. The approach marks a significant shift in immigration enforcement, blending digital innovation with high-stakes rhetoric to influence behavior on a massive scale.

This campaign arrives amid heightened political focus on border security, following President Donald Trump’s re-election and a series of executive actions aimed at tightening immigration policies. The administration frames the initiative as a cost-effective alternative to traditional deportations, which can be logistically complex and expensive. But the strategy has ignited debate, with some praising its efficiency and others questioning its humanitarian and legal implications.

The CBP Home app, rebranded from its earlier iteration as CBP One, was originally designed for cargo inspections and asylum appointment scheduling. Its latest update, launched in March 2025, transforms it into a tool for self-deportation. Available for free on major app stores, the app allows users to submit their intent to leave the U.S., streamlining a process that once required court approval. The administration touts this as a humane option, offering a chance to avoid harsher consequences.

Beyond its core function, the app reflects a broader trend in immigration enforcement: the use of technology to monitor and manage populations. Federal agencies have invested billions in surveillance tools since 2020, from facial recognition to GPS-enabled devices. The app integrates with these systems, collecting biometric and personal data to track users’ compliance. While officials argue this enhances efficiency, privacy advocates warn of overreach, citing risks to data security and civil liberties.

The app’s rollout has not been without hiccups. Some users report technical glitches, and access remains limited for those without smartphones or reliable internet. Critics also note that the app’s voluntary nature may feel coercive, given the severe penalties for noncompliance. Supporters, however, see it as a pragmatic solution, reducing the need for costly detention and deportation operations.

Complementing the app is a far-reaching advertising campaign, broadcast across television, radio, social media, and text messages. The ads, tailored in multiple languages, target undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and potential migrants in countries like Mexico and Central America. Their message is blunt: leave now or face dire consequences. By highlighting risks like fines and jail time, the campaign seeks to create a sense of urgency, directing viewers to download the CBP Home app.

This hyper-targeted approach relies on sophisticated data analytics, a departure from traditional public service announcements. The government has partnered with private firms to deliver ads through platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, ensuring they reach specific demographics. Internationally, the campaign aims to deter migration by emphasizing stricter border policies and swift deportations. Over 740,000 removals in the past year lend weight to these warnings, according to official figures.

Yet the ads have drawn scrutiny for their tone and impact. Some argue they foster fear and mistrust in immigrant communities, discouraging engagement with legal processes like asylum claims. Others question their effectiveness, pointing to historical data showing that deterrence campaigns often fail to reduce migration driven by violence or economic desperation. The administration counters that early data suggests increased self-deportation rates, though public evidence remains limited.

The campaign is part of a broader policy shift under the Trump administration, which has moved to treat undocumented presence as a criminal matter. The Laken Riley Act, signed in February 2025, mandates detention for undocumented individuals charged with any crime, while a new federal registry requires those over 13 to submit biometrics and carry proof of registration. Noncompliance can lead to fines or imprisonment, a stark contrast to prior policies that treated unauthorized presence as a civil violation.

These measures build on decades of evolving immigration enforcement. Since the 1929 criminalization of unlawful entry, federal law has increasingly intertwined immigration and criminal justice. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform Act expanded deportation grounds, while recent years have seen greater use of digital surveillance. Today’s policies, however, are notable for their scale and intensity, with plans for what officials call the largest deportation operation in U.S. history.

Internationally, the U.S. has ramped up deterrence through bilateral agreements and expanded removal flights. Safe Mobility Offices in the region offer lawful migration pathways, but strict asylum rules and transit visa requirements limit access. While these efforts have reduced border encounters, they’ve also raised concerns about compliance with international obligations, particularly for vulnerable groups like unaccompanied minors.

The initiative has sparked polarized reactions. Advocates for stricter enforcement, including some lawmakers and border security officials, applaud the campaign as a necessary response to unauthorized migration. They argue it protects national security and reduces strain on public resources. The promise of future legal reentry for those who self-deport is seen as a fair incentive, balancing firmness with flexibility.

On the other hand, immigrant rights groups and privacy advocates raise alarms. They contend that the campaign’s aggressive messaging and reliance on digital surveillance erode trust and due process. The threat of fines and jail time, they argue, may push people further into hiding rather than encourage voluntary departure. Legal scholars also question whether equating undocumented presence with criminality aligns with federal law, which distinguishes between civil and criminal violations.

As the campaign unfolds, its long-term impact remains uncertain. The integration of digital tools like the CBP Home app signals a new era in immigration enforcement, one defined by efficiency and reach. Yet the reliance on technology and deterrence raises complex questions about fairness, privacy, and human rights. For undocumented immigrants, the choice between self-deportation and the risk of forced removal carries profound personal stakes.

The debate over these policies reflects deeper tensions in U.S. immigration policy, where security, humanitarian concerns, and economic realities collide. For now, the government’s message is clear: compliance offers a path forward, but defiance invites severe consequences. How this balance shapes migration patterns, and the lives of those affected, will be a critical measure of the campaign’s legacy.