Welcome to the discussion on the complex dynamics between U.S. employers and the labor market, especially concerning undocumented migrant workers. In the current economic landscape, many employers appear to be reliant on the exploitation of these workers, choosing not to improve wages and working conditions that could attract a broader talent pool, including American workers. Here’s an analysis of the situation.
Yves here. This post reveals much about the behavior exhibited by numerous U.S. employers. They have grown so accustomed to depending on undocumented migrant workers—often hiring them at unlawfully low wages, subjecting them to hazardous working conditions, and engaging in various exploitative practices—that they seem unwilling to modify the job scope to entice American workers. I reject the notion that migrant labor does not compete with U.S. employment. For example, farmers in Maine endure the physically taxing job of harvesting blueberries. In my childhood, strawberry picking was a sought-after summer job, regardless of its demanding nature. Our yard worker in Alabama (who happens to be white) recalled that during his youth, he and his family worked alongside Black individuals in agricultural jobs. Additionally, meatpacking, once a perilous job staffed by Americans, paid $35 an hour—significantly more than current wages. Thus, I assert that the real issue lies not in Americans’ reluctance to perform specific jobs, but rather in the wages and overall working conditions offered.
Moreover, ICE’s enforcement actions have failed to target employers effectively. As a colleague pointed out, sending a decisive signal by prosecuting major corporations like Marriott could resonate throughout the hotel industry, which relies heavily on a substantial workforce and lacks any immediate alternatives for reducing its staff.
This survey illustrates that profit-driven employers prefer to downsize their operations rather than adjust compensation and workplace practices to accommodate workers they cannot easily exploit. Furthermore, simply reducing the number of undocumented migrants in the workforce is insufficient to restore genuine labor bargaining power.
By Chloe N. East, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Colorado Boulder and Elizabeth Cox, Professional Research Assistant, Economics Department, University of Colorado Boulder. Originally published at The Conversation
President Donald Trump campaigned on a commitment to bolster the labor market. His immigration platform, which included plans for the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history, was pivotal to that promise.
“For too long, Washington ignored how mass illegal immigration artificially suppressed wages, hurting working-class Americans—especially young men,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated on X in July 2025. “But under President Trump, we now have a secure border, a blue-collar wage boom, and significant investments from trade deals.”
However, the actual labor market tells a different story. During Trump’s second term, unemployment rose, hiring declined, and wage growth stagnated, particularly affecting the construction sector.
We are scholars of labor markets, immigration, and public environmental policy, who have analyzed how these economic trends can be traced back to the mass deportation efforts during Trump’s second term. Notably, while areas that experienced intensified ICE enforcement saw drops in employment among immigrants, there was no corresponding increase in employment or wages among U.S. citizens.
A Chilling Effect on Immigrant Workers
Using data from October 2023 to November 2025, we examined employment rates and wages for both immigrant and U.S.-born workers in regions experiencing sudden increases in ICE arrests, comparing them to areas without such enforcement spikes.
In locations subjected to heightened ICE activity, we observed a marked reduction in the employment rate of likely undocumented immigrants who were neither detained nor deported. This was particularly striking in industries where such workers are: agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale markets. We noted a 4% decrease in the employment rate in these sectors.
The fear of deportation appeared to deter these immigrants from seeking work. A Pew Research survey conducted in the summer of 2025 indicated that 43% of foreign-born respondents expressed worries about deportation for themselves or someone close to them. We term this phenomenon a chilling effect, as these individuals may not physically exit the labor market, yet modify their behavior due to ICE’s presence.
The chilling effect observed during Trump’s second term is approximately double that documented in earlier research investigating mass deportation programs like Secure Communities under President Obama. In a companion article co-authored with sociologist Caitlin Patler, we suggest a likely explanation: ICE arrests during Trump’s tenure have been notably more indiscriminate and public. The average daily ICE arrests exceeded any rate seen over the past decade, and the proportion of arrests conducted in public locations—such as streets, workplaces, courthouses, and school parking lots—more than doubled, rising from 19% to nearly 50% of all apprehensions. Consequently, the intimidation factor is likely to have extended further.
The Broader Effects
Trump’s promise during his 2024 presidential campaign to prioritize ICE enforcement against criminals, especially violent offenders, did not manifest as expected. We instead found that the proportion of immigrants arrested by ICE with criminal convictions dropped to a near-record low during this time, decreasing from around 60% in January 2025 to below 30% by the end of the year.
The economic repercussions have extended beyond immigrant workers; many consumers have also reduced spending. Other researchers have noted that cities experiencing expanded ICE raids in 2025 faced a drop in consumer spending and economic activity. For instance, in February 2026, Minneapolis officials estimated that the city’s economy lost approximately $203 million due to decreases in restaurant, hotel, and retail revenues, in addition to lost wages. Another study found that states with increased ICE enforcement experienced a 1.7 percentage points drop in credit and debit card spending compared to those without such enforcement.
Additional research has demonstrated similar effects regarding foot traffic, which significantly declined in regions with increased ICE activities. A Wharton study released in May 2026 estimated that foot traffic in areas heavily affected by ICE operations dropped by 2.7%, and spending decreased by 6.2% weekly.
What Happened to U.S.-Born Workers?
Trump’s central political assertion was that deportations would free up jobs for American workers. Yet our findings reveal the contrary: Employment among U.S.-born workers also diminished in regions with increased ICE activity. Employers did not respond by raising wages to attract more Americans; instead, their demand for workers shrank.
The crux of the issue lies in the assumption that foreign-born and U.S.-born workers are in direct competition for the same positions. However, the example of the Trump administration highlights a different dynamic. As documented by us and other economists, the labor market is not a zero-sum game. Immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to occupy complementary roles instead of competing for identical jobs.
Construction serves as a prominent example. Fewer undocumented workers on job sites equates to less work for electricians, roofers, and supervisors—jobs that are more typically held by U.S.-born workers who rely on ongoing projects for employment.
The overall stagnation in the construction industry employment in 2025 aligns with this pattern, resembling earlier findings indicating that Obama-era deportations curtailed homebuilding and raised new home prices.
Immigration crackdowns are, of course, not new in U.S. history. In the early 1930s, President Herbert Hoover expelled 400,000 Mexican workers, yet neither wages nor employment for U.S.-born workers increased. Similarly, Obama’s Secure Communities program during the 2010s produced comparable results.
As our latest research further confirms, mass deportations do not create new job opportunities for American citizens. To genuinely strengthen the labor market, future administrations will need to pursue alternative strategies.
