One of the standard rationales for deporting undocumented migrants is that this creates more job opportunities for natives. If employers cannot hire migrants, they will presumably hire more native-born citizens. In a recent article for the Peterson Institute of International Economics, my George Mason University colleague Michael Clemens, one of the world’s leading immigration economists, explains why this intuitive assumption is false. In reality, mass deportations destroy more jobs than they create:
The presumptive presidential nominee of one of the two major U.S. political parties has embraced a campaign platform of mass deportation for immigrants who are in the country illegally. He called for military troops to kidnap millions of people every year in “workplace raids and other raids in public places” and to send those caught to “giant detention camps.” The “largest internal deportation in American history” is expected to begin on January 20, 2025.
As this candidate’s top immigration adviser put it: “Mass deportation will be a labor market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs.”
But the best economic research on past deportations suggests otherwise. Immigrants targeted for deportation are the lifeblood of several sectors of the U.S. economy. Their deportation will instead push U.S. entrepreneurs to scale back or start fewer new businesses, in some cases shifting their investments to less labor-intensive technologies and industries, while reducing production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods.
Previous incidents of mass deportations and exclusions have occurred at various times in U.S. history. Research has shown that, far from generating economic benefits, their net effect has been to reduce employment and earnings for US workers, in the short and long term.
The remainder of the article outlines the extensive empirical evidence on this point.
The key theoretical point is that although deporting immigrants often creates jobs for natives who compete directly with them, it destroys more in other sectors of the economy. For example, migrant workers produce goods that are used by other businesses, thus creating jobs there. Immigrants start new businesses at higher rates than natives. This, in turn, creates new jobs for both natives and immigrants. And, of course, immigrant workers produce goods and services that greatly improve the options available to native consumers (thus indirectly making them richer). Clemens notes a number of other relevant indirect effects. Overall, immigration creates enormous economic benefits for natives, and limiting it greatly reduces their well-being and economic freedom (although migrants who are banned or deported suffer even more).
A useful way to think about this question is to ask whether the 20th century expansion of labor market opportunities for women and blacks helped white, networked male workers or hurt them. Some white men probably were net losers. If you were a fringe white Major League Baseball player replaced by Jackie Robinson or other black baseball stars after the integration of MLB, it’s possible you’d never find another job you enjoyed as much as that one. But the vast majority of white men were almost certainly net beneficiaries by virtue of the fact that opening opportunities to women and blacks dramatically increased society’s overall wealth and productivity.
If we excluded women from the workforce today, or limited them to the types of jobs open to them a century ago, some male workers would benefit. For example, by freeing myself from competition from female academics, I could get a pay raise or become a professor at a top-tier school.
But overall, men would be much poorer, as they would live in a much less productive and innovative society. And many men would lose their jobs or suffer pay cuts because their productivity depends in part on goods and services produced by women. Even though I might have a more prestigious job, I would probably be poorer, overall, because I could no longer benefit from many goods, services, and innovations produced by working women.
Similar consequences would occur if we reinstated racial segregation, thus severely limiting the employment opportunities of black workers. While some whites would come out ahead, most would be net losers, as our economy would become much less productive.
The key point to remember is that the economy, including the job market, is not a zero-sum game. Men and women, blacks and whites, immigrants and natives can all thrive together, if only the government would let them.
Michael Clemens’ most famous article gives an idea of the enormous benefits of eliminating immigration restrictions, which could result in a doubling of global GDP. While migrants and their families would benefit disproportionately, there would also be enormous benefits for native-born citizens.