Introduction
The debate surrounding mass deportation often hinges on the belief that expelling unauthorized immigrants will benefit native workers by driving up wages. However, this perspective oversimplifies a complex economic issue. Analyzing the impacts of mass deportation reveals a far more detrimental effect on the labor market and the economy.
Mass deportation represents a significant intervention in the market. When viewed through the lenses of labor markets, production complementarities, and historical examples, it becomes clear that mass deportation is not a wage-boosting reform but rather a substantial negative shock. This process diminishes output, increases prices, and ultimately results in adverse effects for the majority of American workers.
Current proposals aim to target approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants, an estimated 8.5 to 10.8 million of whom are part of the labor force. The sheer scale of this approach sets it apart from previous enforcement efforts. Economic analyses from the American Immigration Council and the Penn Wharton Budget Model suggest that such large-scale removal of workers could shrink U.S. GDP by 2.6 to 6.8%, a loss comparable to or exceeding that experienced during the Great Recession. These figures are not hypothetical; they represent concrete disruptions in sectors where unauthorized workers play an essential role.
From a foundational perspective, the forcible removal of 8 to 10 million mostly prime-age workers generates a negative labor supply shock. This contraction reduces the hours worked and productive capacity, increases prices in sectors lacking quick labor substitutes, and undermines the specific capital and synergies that render these workers particularly effective. Given that unauthorized workers are prevalent in labor-intensive, hard-to-automate sectors, the lost output cannot be easily compensated for by capital enhancement or native labor. Consequently, the negative impact is borne by consumers through higher prices, complementary workers with decreasing real wages, and business owners facing diminished profits.
We can observe these effects already in sectors like construction and agriculture. In construction, unauthorized immigrants represent about 19% of the workforce and over 30% in trades such as roofing, drywall, and concrete, which means that mass deportation could remove around 1.5 million workers—about 14% of the sector’s workforce—thereby delaying projects and inflating building expenses. In agriculture, unauthorized workers account for nearly one quarter of farm labor nationally and up to one third in roles like harvesting and sorting, potentially leading to the loss of approximately 225,000 agricultural workers, leading to diminished output and increased food prices. One modeling investigation indicates food price inflation might rise by 9% under large-scale deportation scenarios. The hospitality, childcare, cleaning, and food preparation sectors could collectively lose nearly one million workers, and due to the demanding, irregular, and geographically fixed nature of these jobs, employers have historically struggled to replace immigrant labor with native workers at acceptable wage levels.
Historical evidence reinforces these predictions. The expansion of the Secure Communities program from 2008 to 2013 saw intensified interior enforcement in various jurisdictions. Research from that era indicates that increased deportations led to reduced construction activity and caused housing prices to rise by 5 to 10% in affected areas, without yielding any enduring wage increases for native workers. The short-term scarcity of labor did not result in sustained improvements in worker well-being; instead, it translated into reduced output and heightened prices.
Proponents of mass deportation may recognize these disruptions yet argue that native workers will reap rewards in the form of higher wages. Initially, some low-skill native workers might see slight wage increases, usually in the range of 1 to 3%. However, such gains are both minimal and short-lived. Firms facing labor shortages typically do not continuously raise wages; instead, they decrease hours, cut back on output, automate, or even close their businesses. As production contracts, the demand for labor declines, nullifying the initial wage increase.
In contrast, higher-skill workers—who constitute roughly two-thirds of the U.S. labor force—are likely to experience clear losses. Since low-skill and high-skill labor are complementary in production, the removal of low-skill workers diminishes the productivity of those at the higher end of the skill spectrum. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects potential long-term wage reductions of 0.5 to 2.8% for higher-skill workers following mass deportation. These losses, while less visible, are substantial and often overlooked in political discourse.
The fiscal implications amplify the damage. The Baker Institute estimates that the upfront costs of mass deportation would surpass $315 billion, with ongoing annual enforcement expenses nearing $88 billion. Implementing such a policy would necessitate a significant expansion of federal enforcement capabilities, potentially requiring hundreds of thousands of new agents. Taxpayers would finance these costs without any corresponding increase in productive capacity.
Simultaneously, the removal of unauthorized immigrants would eliminate substantial tax revenue. These individuals contribute about $46.8 billion annually in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in state and local taxes, including payroll taxes that support Social Security and Medicare. Consequently, their removal exacerbates long-term fiscal challenges rather than alleviating them.
The social repercussions are equally profound. More than five million U.S. citizen children reside in households with at least one unauthorized parent. Deportation frequently slashes household income by half overnight, destabilizing families and heightening their dependence on public assistance. These downstream costs seldom make their way into the narratives surrounding enforcement, yet they are both genuine and enduring.
The political allure of mass deportation lies in its visibility. Raids, removals, and enforcement statistics provide clear indicators of activity. Economically, however, deportation behaves much like a cartel—restricting labor supply to benefit a select few while imposing widespread costs onto consumers, taxpayers, and complementary workers. Property owners do not monopolize physically demanding work; nor does excluding immigrants automatically reassign those roles to native workers at enhanced productivity.
Labor markets operate by coordinating through specialization and pricing signals. Immigrant workers often specialize in tasks that complement native labor, which enables firms to increase output and allows natives to transition into supervisory and customer-facing positions. Deportation disrupts this collaborative process, supplanting cooperation with force, thereby shrinking the overall economic pie rather than simply redistributing jobs and wages more equitably.
Should the goal truly be elevated wages and sustained prosperity, a more effective pathway emerges, one founded on fundamental economic principles. Expand legal work visas, create transparent pricing, and enforce contracts rather than resorting to deportation. This entails treating migrant workers like any other market participants, granting firms legal, tradable access to labor through visas, and then utilizing contract and labor law enforcement to address abuses such as wage theft and safety violations, instead of employing raids and deportations as primary compliance tools.
Addressing border security concerns can also be integrated into this approach. For instance, visa auctions could help generate funding for the resources necessary to maintain orderly borders while allowing labor markets to function effectively. Employment verification could occur post-hire, safeguarding property rights and discouraging exploitation simultaneously.
Conclusion
Mass deportation does not elevate American workers; rather, it impoverishes them—quietly, broadly, and predictably. A thriving economy anchored in voluntary exchange and secure property rights prioritizes labor mobility over enforced scarcity. If the aim is increased abundance—more homes, lower prices, and rising real wages—the evidence strongly advocates for legal, market-driven labor flows instead of deportation.
