MAGA gets the economics of immigration all wrong

One problem with ethnonationalist political movements is that they tend to substitute theatrics for effective policymaking. It’s much more exciting to issue dark warnings about “threats from within” than to, say, analyze the details of jobs matching systems. But before we head down the MAGA path on immigration, it would be prudent to assess the economics of the issue.

As part of MAGA’s efforts to destroy the so-called Deep State, the Heritage Foundation has published its Project 2025. In the realm of immigration, Project 2025 commits a second Trump administration to freeze work visas at statutorily set caps. The cap for foreign non-agricultural workers is currently set at 66,000, effectively guaranteeing that, given business demand for these workers, most it will be supplied via illegal immigration.

Nonetheless, Project 2025 envisions “establishing and maintaining temporary facilities” for expelling illegal immigrants. More specifically, in an interview with the New York Times, former Trump advisor Stephen Miller announced that if Trump is reelected, his administration plans to round up millions of illegal immigrants, place them in what can only be called concentration camps, then deport them.

Trump had already given notice of the deportation plan in September, stating, “Following the Eisenhower model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Miller filled in some details, stating “Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown. The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”

However, the “immigration legal activists” include a vast number of American businesses that Miller said would be targeted with workplace raids. Miller stated that “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.” And it is here that the MAGA movement runs smack into the economics of immigration.

There are approximately 9.5 million job openings in the United States. If the market mechanism of “higher wages and better benefits” that Miller cited were indeed as strong as he alleges, this number would be much lower. Further, foreign-born workers make up approximately 18 percent of the U.S. labor force. And given work visa caps, this includes approximately 8 million illegal immigrants, just under 5 percent of the labor force. Consequently, the mass deportation model could drive up job openings to over 15 million.

We had a glimpse of this kind of approach to immigration in the United Kingdom when Brexit went into effect. In 2021, the UK economy began to experience significant food and fuel shortages due to a cumulative loss of over 1 million EU workers. The Conservative Party presented this as a potential boon to domestic UK workers who would receive higher wages, but the severity of the shortages suggested that this mechanism did not work. Consequently, Boris Johnson’s pro-Brexit government was forced to increase temporary visas for EU truck drivers and poultry workers to address the crisis.

As it turns out, economists have spent a great deal of time and effort studying the impacts of migration. For example, there is a basic distinction between high-skilled and low-skilled immigration. In almost all cases, high-skilled immigration has a positive impact on long-run growth trends and should be supported.

Low-skilled immigration is more nuanced, but one area of agreement is that, in general, low-skilled immigrants are imperfect substitutes for domestic workers. Consequently, low-skilled immigrants can suppress local wages, but generally do so by smaller amounts than we might expect.

What is the solution to the immigration conundrum in the United States? First, we need to shore up the asylum system, recognizing the responsibilities of the U.S. under the United Nations Refugee Convention. There are more than 2 million cases pending, with an average four-year process for resolution. We must invest in immigration judges and other asylum officials to fix this system — at a fraction of the cost of putting millions people who are currently working in America in concentration camps.

Second, we must significantly increase formal employment-immigration systems to realistic levels for both high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants. This would not necessarily increase the total amount of immigration but would affect the legality of it, benefiting American firms with more regular access to necessary workers, supporting the rule of law and increasing tax revenues from now-regularized workers.

Third, we need to think about why migrant flows from Latin America are so high. One of the contributing factors is the dramatic increase in gang activity in the region. These gangs are armed by weaponry produced in the U.S. This “iron river” has destabilized the region, causing many to literally flee for their lives. The “problem no one wants to talk about” needs to be addressed.

These are just a few of the policy issues that need to be confronted to develop a more sensible American immigration policy. Ethnonationalist posturing will not help, and mass deportations would rob the economy of the workers it needs.

MAGA would better serve the U.S. by consulting the economics of immigration. This would reveal that, for the most part, immigrants help to make America great.

Kenneth A. Reinert is a professor of public policy at the Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University.