President Donald Trump launched a campaign focused on illegal immigration, promising a crackdown that would be unprecedented in the United States. His administration’s anti-immigration efforts, particularly in Southern California, have led to severe consequences, including military deployments in communities like Los Angeles. Amid protests against deportations, Trump and his allies characterize these demonstrations as insurrections driven by Mexican ‘invaders.’ A significant legal battle is unfolding as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considers the constitutionality of deploying the National Guard against the wishes of a state governor.
On social media, Trump revealed that his administration is prioritizing the identification and removal of illegal immigrants, claiming a need to combat what he terms ‘Mass Destruction Migration.’ Despite this aggressive rhetoric, Trump made an unexpected admission regarding deportations: they do not necessarily work as intended. He noted that sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and leisure industries contend that the strict immigration policies are harming businesses by removing essential workers, making it difficult to fill those positions.
Research over the decades has shown time and again that illegal immigrants do not typically displace native-born workers or depress wages; in fact, removing them could harm the overall economy. The liberal-leaning American Immigration Council predicted that a sustained effort to deport one million illegal immigrants annually could reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by at least 4.2%, comparable to the effects of the Great Recession in 2008.
In a comprehensive study released by the National Academies of Sciences in 2017, overseen by 14 professors, the conclusion was that immigration positively impacts long-term economic growth and even contributes to lowering unemployment rates for native workers, particularly during times of increased immigration.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also suggested that while an increase in migration might initially lower wages for native-born workers and legal immigrants, it would lead to wage growth over time.
Commentary from Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, illustrates the ongoing debate. While he argued that immigration can detrimentally affect wages and employment for some native workers, he admitted that it is challenging to isolate the specific impacts of illegal immigration on the job market.
Recent research conducted by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire reflected on past efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the workforce, such as during the Great Depression, the end of the bracero program in 1964, and deportations under the Obama administration. This study found no substantial benefits to U.S.-born residents from deportation policies.
Furthermore, a paper published by the Brookings Institute in 2024 found that many of the professions most populated by illegal immigrants—hospitality, agriculture, and restaurant work—are not widely embraced by U.S. citizens, leading to a dependency on undocumented labor.
In response to the conflicting needs of these industries and the ongoing deportation efforts, the New York Times reported that ICE issued a directive urging a pause on enforcement operations at worksites in agriculture and hospitality. This suggests a recognition within the administration that mass deportations could threaten critical sectors of the economy.
The question arises: why does the administration persist with mass deportations despite evidence of its detrimental effects on American workers? The answer appears to lie in the power of fear. Trump’s immigration policies, heavily influenced by his advisor Stephen Miller, have focused on creating a climate of terror regarding illegal immigration, effectively casting undocumented individuals and their supporters as threats.
California’s history of radical anti-immigration sentiment has played a central role in shaping Miller’s worldview, adopting a narrative that views immigration not merely through an economic lens but as a cultural battleground. This ongoing xenophobia recalls the historical context that shaped earlier U.S. responses to immigration, leading to reactions akin to those seen in Trump’s campaign.
Trump’s softened stance towards industries that rely on undocumented workers hints at an understanding that the U.S. economy is not easily disrupted without significant consequences. If he were to focus strictly on the economic ramifications of illegal immigration, he might face less backlash. However, his choice to frame the conversation in terms of ‘Migrant Invasion’ keeps the narrative steeped in fear and urgency.
Historically, Trump’s immigration enforcement approach seems to draw inspiration from Operation Wetback, a mass deportation initiative from the 1950s that aimed to repatriate Mexican undocumented workers. LE officials claimed this campaign achieved dramatic results, boasting 1.3 million deportations in a single year, all under the guise of improving conditions for American workers.
Yet, a scholarly examination of Operation Wetback reveals a different story, with researcher Juan Ramón García’s work illustrating that the operation did not bolster the American workforce as promised. Instead, it led to the exploitation of legal immigrants and citizens who took on the responsibilities of the workers who had been deported, while also deepening mistrust among Mexican Americans towards government institutions.
García’s research indicates that Operation Wetback ultimately did not curb illegal immigration, a reflection of the persistent demand for cheap labor in the U.S. Current discussions echo those sentiments, as challenges regarding illegal immigration persist decades later.
As the U.S. grapples with its complicated relationship with immigration, it becomes clear that President Donald Trump’s approach may not produce the positive outcomes he argues for. The potential human and economic toll of his policies suggests a reconsideration of immigration strategies is necessary, lest they lead to more turmoil and unrest.
In summary, it is time for a reevaluation of the aggressive deportation strategies and an understanding that positive reform must recognize the integral role immigrants play in the U.S. economy. The dismissal of research and historical precedence in favor of fear-based rhetoric only perpetuates a cycle of disruption and misunderstanding.
Such patterns should prompt conversations about the future of immigration policy and the necessity of embracing a more inclusive and economically sensible approach.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-17/history-shows-mass-deportations-dont-work-so-why-does-trump-pursue-them
