The Myth of Immigration as an Economic Threat
Donald Trump and his allies on the right argue that immigration is a direct threat to American workers, particularly those in blue-collar jobs. At a recent rally, Trump claimed that "Kamala Harris’s border invasion" is "crushing the jobs and wages of African American workers and Hispanic American workers and also union members." He has repeatedly framed immigration as "all-out economic warfare" on the working class. This narrative is simple and intuitive: more immigrants mean more competition for jobs, leading to lower wages and higher unemployment for native-born workers. Republican Senator J.D. Vance echoed this sentiment during the vice-presidential debate, asserting that deporting undocumented immigrants would "be really good for our workers, who just want to earn a fair wage for doing a good day’s work."
This argument has gained traction, even among some Democrats, who now frame their defense of immigration not on its benefits but on the potential economic harm of deportation, such as labor shortages and rising prices. However, this shift in rhetoric is problematic because it accepts the premise that immigration harms native-born workers—a premise that decades of economic research thoroughly contradicts.
The Economic Consensus: Immigration Doesn’t Harm Native-Born Workers
The idea that immigration depresses wages is rooted in basic economics: when the supply of labor increases, the price of labor (wages) should fall. This is the Econ 101 narrative, which for much of the 20th century was the dominant view among economists. However, this framework has been challenged and largely debunked by empirical evidence. One of the most famous studies on this topic was conducted by economist David Card in 1990, analyzing the Mariel Boatlift, a mass migration of 125,000 Cubans to Miami in 1980. Card found that the influx of immigrants had virtually no effect on the wages or employment prospects of native-born workers, including those without a college degree.
Since then, numerous natural experiments in countries like Israel and Denmark have reinforced this conclusion: immigrants do not make native-born workers worse off, and often make them better off. Immigrants are not just workers; they are also consumers who create demand, and entrepreneurs who start businesses. These dual roles mean that the increase in labor supply is balanced by an increase in demand, effectively canceling out any downward pressure on wages. Critics like Harvard economist George Borjas have argued that low-skilled immigration harms native-born workers without a high-school education, but his findings have been discredited due to flawed data and methodology. Studies examining the same data without his exclusionary criteria have found no negative impact on wages.
Beyond Wages: The Broader Economic Benefits of Immigration
The debate over immigration often focuses narrowly on wages, but the broader economic benefits of immigration are just as important. Immigrants fill labor shortages in critical industries, from agriculture to healthcare, and they create jobs by starting businesses. In fact, immigrants are 80% more likely to start a business than native-born Americans. These businesses not only create jobs for immigrants but also for native-born workers. For example, in the restaurant industry, immigrants may take jobs as fry cooks, but their presence also enables the creation of higher-paying roles for native-born workers, such as servers, hosts, and bartenders.
The economic benefits of immigration are further evident in the aftermath of deportation campaigns. From 2008 to 2014, the Department of Homeland Security deported about 500,000 undocumented immigrants through its "Secure Communities" program. Studies found that for every 100 migrant workers deported, nine fewer jobs existed for native-born workers, and wages also fell slightly. These findings contradict the notion that deporting immigrants helps native-born workers; instead, it undermines local economies by reducing both labor and demand.
Historical Correlations vs. Causal Relationships
Critics of immigration often point to historical trends as evidence that immigration harms workers. They note that the decades of fastest income growth for American workers—the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s—coincided with low levels of immigration. Since the 1970s, immigration has surged while wages for the median worker have stagnated. Conservative thinkers like Oren Cass argue that this correlation implies causation, suggesting that high levels of immigration are responsible for declining worker fortunes. However, correlation does not equal causation, and this argument ignores other critical factors that have driven wage stagnation, such as the decline of labor unions, the rise of corporate concentration, and the loosening of trade policies.
Moreover, recent data contradicts the narrative that immigration is linked to wage stagnation. Regions with the highest levels of immigration, such as Texas, Florida, and the D.C.-to-Boston corridor, have experienced some of the least wage stagnation in recent decades. And since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. has seen both a surge in illegal immigration and a significant reduction in wage inequality, with wages rising fastest for the lowest-paid workers. This doesn’t mean that immigration caused the spike in wages, but it does illustrate that historical trends don’t support the simplistic claim that more immigration equals worse outcomes for workers.
The Cultural Anxieties Driving Anti-Immigrant Sentiment
The appeal of restricting immigration has little to do with economics, despite the rhetoric. Polls show that opposition to immigration is driven more by cultural anxieties about crime, social norms, and national identity than by material concerns. Anti-immigrant sentiment is stronger among older, retired Americans in rural areas with few immigrants than among working-age Americans in immigrant-heavy cities like New York and Los Angeles.
Even Trump, who frames immigration as an economic issue, rarely focuses on wages in his speeches. Instead, he portrays immigrants as a criminal and cultural threat, falsely claiming that they are "pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums" and absurdly alleging that they are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. This kind of rhetoric reveals that the economic case against immigration is often a fig leaf for deeper-seated biases.
The Springfield Experiment: Immigration in Real Life
The town of Springfield, Ohio, offers a real-world case study of immigration’s impact. In recent years, thousands of Haitian immigrants—most with legal status—have settled in the town of 58,000. While their arrival has strained local housing, healthcare, and education systems, it has also brought significant economic benefits. Immigrants have helped keep auto factories running, filled labor shortages in distribution centers, and opened new restaurants and small businesses. Wage growth in Springfield surged during the migration wave, staying above 6% for two years before slowing down. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine noted, "They’re very good workers" who have "helped the economy."
Springfield’s experience reflects the broader truth about immigration. While it presents challenges, the benefits often outweigh the costs. Immigrants don’t just take jobs; they create them. They don’t just consume goods and services; they produce them. And they don’t just strain public resources; they also expand the tax base that funds those resources. The trade-offs are real, but the overall impact of immigration on the working class is far more nuanced—and far less damaging—than the political rhetoric suggests.
