Contemporary debate regarding immigration policies in the United States has frequently been shaped by rhetoric pitting the interests of native-born workers against those of immigrants. Based on the premise that restricting the foreign workforce would lead to more job opportunities and higher wages for the native population, successive administrations have adopted rigorous measures for border control and interior enforcement. However, recent studies challenge this view, revealing that economic interdependence—driven by specialization and the division of labor—turns immigration enforcement into a catalyst for broad economic contraction.

Research from institutions with differing intellectual perspectives, such as the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute, indicates that restrictive immigration policies can entail significant economic costs. Rather than protecting local workers, the intensification of apprehension, detention, and deportation operations is linked to the disruption of supply chains, a decline in consumption, and heightened economic uncertainty. Given this, it is crucial to comprehensively assess the immediate and long-term impacts of these enforcement policies on U.S. labor market dynamics, social mobility, and the sustainability of economic growth.

IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

The intensification of enforcement actions implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout 2025, under the Trump administration, served as a laboratory for measuring the costs of a homeland security policy disconnected from the country's labor market realities. According to a detailed study released by the Brookings Institution, the escalation of "shock and awe" tactics—namely, high-profile detentions, arrests, and raids—resulted in a net loss of 668,000 jobs. This sharp decline in employment levels reflects a phenomenon that goes beyond the mere physical removal of undocumented workers from businesses, as reported by Bloomberg in an article by Michael Sasso, which is cited in the Brookings Institution report itself.

It is evident that this contraction permeates local communities and significantly alters the socioeconomic behavior of immigrant families, including those with legal immigration status or U.S. citizens within the household. Faced with widespread fear of interacting with government agencies or moving through public spaces due to the conspicuous nature of police raids, the climate of insecurity tends to drive immigrant families to cut spending and avoid interactions with public institutions, as well as to withdraw from assistance programs for which they are fully eligible. This sudden contraction in local aggregate demand directly weakens neighborhood businesses, the service sector, and regional enterprises, forcing companies to downsize their workforces and halt expansion plans.

REGIONAL EFFECTS OF THE INTENSIFICATION OF ICE OPERATIONS

Consolidated data from the Brookings Institution’s empirical research demonstrate that the negative impact on employment was magnified in cities that experienced the largest relative increase in ICE detention rates. In localities within the top quartile of ICE operations, total employment levels fell by an average of 0.73% below the trajectory estimated in the absence of the enforcement surge. This growth and employment gap became even more pronounced in cities where effects could be observed over a longer timeframe, reaching a 1.48% reduction in municipalities monitored for at least six months following the start of intensified operations. The results indicate that the losses observed deepened during the initial months of analysis, although further data is required to determine their duration. This regional economic contraction illustrates how legal uncertainty stifles business activity, creating cumulative consequences that affect the financial stability of municipalities impacted by the intensification of enforcement.

COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN IMMIGRANT AND NATIVE WORKERS IN THE LABOR MARKET

One of the conclusions that goes against common sense among defenders of severe immigration restrictions is the observation that citizens born in the United States are among those most affected by layoffs and job openings generated by ICE's actions. The Brookings Institution report points out that, of the total 668,000 jobs eliminated because of the escalation of ICE actions in 2025, it is estimated that between 51,000 and 297,000 vacancies corresponded to Native American workers. This data casts doubt on the narrative that the emptying of vacancies occupied by immigrants results in the immediate hiring of local labor. The causal link that explains the loss suffered by US-born workers is based on the operational complementarities that govern the modern corporate environment. In sectors with high immigrant labor intensity, such as construction, hotels, agriculture and food services, foreign and native workers do not act as perfect substitutes but perform complementary functions along production chains. When a company suddenly loses its operational workforce due to a deportation action or the abandonment of positions for fear of inspection, it faces a serious drop in its productive capacity. Without enough workers to perform core tasks, the financial viability of entire projects is put at risk, forcing companies to scale back their global operations. The study suggests that, as a consequence of the indirect effects resulting from complementarity between workers, positions frequently occupied by native citizens become economically unsustainable, culminating in the layoff of American workers.

MIGRATION RESTRICTIONS AND INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY: HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

Historical evidence examined by the Cato Institute suggests that severe migration restrictions can have persistent effects on intergenerational mobility. Historical political economy studies indicate that strict migration restrictions leave deep scars that compromise the productivity and upward social mobility of native populations for generations. Researchers at the Cato Institute analyzed the long-term effects of the first major quantitative restrictions imposed by the United States—such as the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924 (which remained in effect for four decades, ending the cycle of mass European migration from 1850 to 1920)—and identified harmful structural consequences for the intergenerational mobility of native-born white men. The research reveals that in counties historically most exposed to the limits imposed by immigration quotas, the children of native-born workers were significantly less likely than their fathers to attain occupations with higher socioeconomic prestige, showing a decline of approximately 1.9 percentage points (about 3.5%) in upward mobility. The authors attribute this generational stagnation to economic shifts caused by the migration restrictions. When the flow of immigrant workers was artificially halted, native-born workers lost the opportunity to specialize in higher-value-added managerial and technical tasks; this stagnation of wages limited their long-term career development.

Another key factor identified by the study concerns the disincentives to human capital accumulation; the presence of a dynamic immigrant workforce boosts the economic return on education investments for native workers, encouraging them to stay in school longer to qualify for higher-skilled jobs. With the closure of the migration market, a 0.16-year average reduction in schooling was observed among native youths in the counties most affected by the restrictions—a trend that compromised national productivity and diminished the economic resilience of subsequent generations.

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMMIGRATION AND CHALLENGES OF RESTRICTIVE POLICIES

Overcoming the affordability crisis and fostering an environment of sustainable growth require recognizing the multifaceted contributions foreign workers make to the United States' Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In opinion pieces published in The Hill, analysts offer a structural perspective on how migration flows serve as a key driver of monetary stabilization and market innovation—filling critical demographic gaps, acting as catalysts for entrepreneurship, and providing labor market flexibility in the face of structural inflationary pressures. However, a recent policy shift significantly altered the traditional governance model—which sought to balance enforcement with the expansion of legal pathways—by concentrating a large share of state resources on tightening immigration policies and curtailing channels for regular migration. According to the analysis, this policy choice created a "double squeeze" on American businesses: the existing workforce was disrupted by enforcement operations, while formal mechanisms for hiring from abroad were rendered unfeasible due to bureaucratic hurdles, thereby artificially exacerbating sectoral crises and penalizing law-abiding business owners.

Taken together, the analyzed evidence suggests that highly restrictive immigration policies can generate significant economic costs and produce adverse effects not only for immigrant workers but also for segments of the native-born population. Although the magnitude and duration of these effects depend on the historical and institutional context, the studies examined indicate that an abrupt reduction in the supply of foreign labor can undermine productivity, social mobility, and long-term economic growth.