- A recent study found that 78% of jobs vacated by deportations remain unfilled in the US.
- The study analyzed over a decade of labor data across US counties with fluctuating ICE activity.
- A 10% increase in deportation rates led to only a 0.3% rise in employment among US-born workers aged 18-44.
- The jobs left behind by deported immigrants often remain vacant in sectors such as agriculture, construction, and service industries.
- The study challenges the assumption that deportations open doors for U.S.-born workers to take their jobs.
As political debates intensify over immigration enforcement, one question keeps resurfacing: if undocumented workers are removed from the workforce, will native-born Americans step in to take their jobs? It’s a central premise in arguments favoring stricter ICE operations—that deportations open doors for U.S.-born workers, especially in agriculture, construction, and service industries. But recent empirical research challenges this assumption head-on. A peer-reviewed study published in the Nature Human Behaviour journal analyzed over a decade of labor data across U.S. counties with fluctuating ICE activity. The findings? When immigration enforcement ramps up and undocumented workers are removed, the jobs they leave behind often remain vacant—not filled by American citizens.
Do Native-Born Workers Replace Deported Immigrants?
The short answer is no—not at scale, and not in the sectors most affected. The study, conducted by economists at UC Berkeley and Princeton, examined employment trends in counties where ICE activity surged due to policy shifts like the 287(g) program and worksite raids between 2008 and 2019. By comparing labor market outcomes in high-enforcement versus low-enforcement regions, researchers found that a 10% increase in deportation rates led to only a 0.3% rise in employment among U.S.-born workers aged 18–44. Crucially, this minimal gain was concentrated in just a few regions and offset by broader labor shortages. The data suggest that structural, cultural, and economic factors prevent seamless substitution in low-wage, high-physical-demand jobs—roles often filled by immigrant labor for decades.
What Does the Data Reveal About Labor Market Shifts?
Detailed county-level analysis shows that industries like dairy farming, poultry processing, and residential construction experienced significant labor attrition following ICE operations, with no commensurate increase in native-born hiring. One striking example occurred in Mississippi after a 2019 ICE raid on seven poultry plants, which removed nearly 700 workers. Despite local job fairs and wage incentives, employers reported persistent staffing shortages for over a year. The study cites U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics microdata showing that native-born Americans are less likely to apply for or remain in jobs involving overnight shifts, physical strain, or geographic isolation—even when unemployed. Moreover, employers in affected sectors noted that recruitment efforts targeting U.S.-born applicants yielded few qualified or willing candidates, reinforcing the mismatch in labor supply and demand.
What Are the Counterarguments and Limitations?
Some economists argue that the study underestimates longer-term adaptation. They suggest that if enforcement remains high, wages could eventually rise enough to attract native-born workers—a classic supply-and-demand response. Others point to specific regions, such as parts of Texas and Georgia, where temporary increases in local hiring followed enforcement actions, suggesting context matters. However, the study’s authors counter that these cases are outliers and often involve public subsidies or short-term incentives that aren’t sustainable. Additionally, critics note that the research focuses on immediate and medium-term effects, not generational labor trends. Still, the bulk of evidence indicates that even when jobs are available, socioeconomic barriers—such as transportation, job training, and stigma around certain industries—limit native-born participation in roles historically filled by immigrants.
How Does This Impact Communities and the Economy?
The real-world consequences extend beyond unfilled jobs. In Georgia, after a wave of raids in 2008, farmers abandoned millions of dollars worth of crops due to lack of harvest labor. In Colorado, construction timelines for affordable housing slowed significantly post-2017 due to workforce shortages. Local economies in enforcement-heavy counties saw reduced sales tax revenue and increased reliance on public assistance, as displaced workers—many of them U.S.-born spouses or children—faced financial strain. Meanwhile, businesses either relocated operations or invested in automation, accelerating trends that may reduce job availability across the board. These ripple effects underscore that immigration enforcement doesn’t operate in a vacuum—it reshapes labor markets, community stability, and economic output in complex, often unintended ways.
What This Means For You
If you believe that deporting undocumented workers naturally opens opportunities for Americans, this research suggests reality is far more complicated. Labor markets don’t always respond predictably to policy shocks, and human behavior—preferences, mobility, family responsibilities—plays a critical role. For voters, policymakers, and workers alike, it means solutions require more nuance than enforcement alone. Understanding why jobs go unfilled helps inform smarter immigration and workforce development policies that reflect actual behavior, not assumptions.
Given that labor shortages persist even during periods of high unemployment, what policy approaches could better align workforce supply with economic demand? And how might retraining, wage reform, or legal immigration pathways offer more effective solutions than enforcement-driven displacement?
Source: Scienceofmoney